Questões de Concursos Inglês

FlexSea’s biodegradable plastics attract £3m investment

01 FlexSea, a startup with its roots at Imperial College London, has announced the completion

02 of a seed round worth £3 million in equity and grants. The investment will help the company

03 commercialize a range of sustainable packaging solutions it has developed, based on plastics

04 derived from seaweed. The aim is to address the catastrophic impact of conventional plastics

05 on the environment, in particular the single-use plastic products that persist in the ocean for

06 many hundreds of years after they are discarded. In contrast, the biodegradable plastics

07 devised by FlexSea will break down in the sea or the soil within a matter of weeks.

08 Carlo Fedeli, the co-founder and Chief Executive of FlexSea, first started to think about

09 biodegradable plastics during the COVID pandemic. “I noticed the amount of plastic packaging

10 that was piling up at home, because of the online groceries and other deliveries we relied on

11 at the time, and I just had enough,” he says. He started looking into the biodegradable plastics

12 that were already available, and found that they often had shortcomings. Some didn’t actually

13 break down very rapidly under day-to-day environmental conditions, while others involved

14 unsustainable production methods. For example, plastics derived from seaweed are often made

15 from brown seaweed, which is usually harvested from nature, rather than the commonly

16 cultivated red seaweed. He set out to develop a thin-film plastic from red seaweed. “By the

17 end of lockdown I had the first prototype, a transparent flexi-film, and that is still the backbone

18 technology of our solvent-cast thin films,” he says.

19 FlexSea was set up in 2021 with co-founder Thibaut Monfort-Micheo. Their first home was

20 at Scale Space, on the White City Campus, and they received support from across Imperial's

21 enterprising ecosystem. In 2021 they joined the Centre for Climate Change Innovation’s

22 Greenhouse Accelerator, and in 2022 they took part in Imperial’s Venture Catalyst Challenge,

23 winning the energy and environment track. "FlexSea has the potential to change the pattern

24 of human consumption of plastic and therefore change the sustainability path of our planet,”

25 says Stephan Morais, Managing General Partner of lead investor Indico Capital. "This

26 investment will allow us ___ (make) significant progress and penetrate the market effectively,”

27 says Carlo Fedeli, the co-founder and Chief Executive of FlexSea.

(Available at: www.imperial.ac.uk/news/248154/flexseas-biodegradable-plastics-attract-3m-investment/ – text especially adapted for this test).

Read Text | and answer questions 05 to 13.

Netflix is trying to prove to the world that it's all grown up

Netflix is trying to persuade Wall Street that it is now all grown up. After squeezing out millions of additional subscribers via its password sharing crackdown and through the introduction of cheaper advertiser-supported plans, the streamer knows that its growth spurts are coming to an end — and now it wants investors to stop obsessing over those pesky membership numbers and instead focus on other metrics.

"In our early days, when we had little revenue or profit, membership growth was a strong indicator of our future potential. But now we're generating very substantial profit and free cash flow. We are also developing new revenue streams like advertising and our extra member feature, so memberships are just one component of our growth", Netflix told shareholders as it reported quarterly earnings.

To that end, Netflix said that it will no longer report quarterly subscriber numbers, starting in 2025. Alas, the metric that Wall Street has forever judged Netflix on — the metric that prompted legacy media companies to burn endless piles of cash in their bids to compete with the streamer — will be retired. The decision to shut off transparency on the metric represents a significant turning point in the streaming revolution. For years, Netflix has prided itself on being extraordinarily transparent. Now it is aiming to hold its cards closer to its chest. And given that streaming giant is the trendsetter in the space, one could expect that other media companies will be inspired by the company's move and also opt to cease reporting such data.

To be fair, what Netflix is saying isn't necessarily off base either. As the company shifts its business model away from subscriptions and toward advertising and other revenue streams, it makes sense to consider how much time users are spending on the service. The more content a user consumes on Netflix, the more likely they are to continue paying for the service, and the more money Netflix then makes from that single subscriber. "We're focused on revenue and operating margin as our primary financial metrics — and engagement (i.e. time spent) as our best proxy for customer satisfaction,” Netflix underscored in its letter to shareholders.

Regardless, less transparency in an already opaque industry is not ideal. The walled garden of streaming already lacks the same detailed viewership data that Nielsen collects on linear television broadcasters. Now, visibility into the streaming world will get even dimmer.

The announcement from Netflix managed to overshadow its otherwise stellar quarter. The company handily beat expectations and added a staggering 9.3 million subscribers, meaning it now boasts nearly 270 million in total. Netflix also beat analyst expectations on both earnings and revenue. However, it wasn't all good news. Netflix forecasted its subscriber growth to be lower in quarter two, chalking it up to “typical seasonality.” That led the stock to slide nearly 5% in after-hours trading.

Whether "typical seasonality” is solely to blame, or whether the streamer is simply starting to hit a ceiling, is hard to tell. Perhaps it is a mix of both. Whatever the cause, the stock sliding on the less-than-ideal outlook is a prime example of why Netflix wants Wall Street to stop focusing on its subscriber numbers. And, in one year's time, investors won't have a choice.

Adapted from: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/19/media/netflix-subscription-numbers/index.html

Read Text | and answer questions 05 to 13.

Netflix is trying to prove to the world that it's all grown up

Netflix is trying to persuade Wall Street that it is now all grown up. After squeezing out millions of additional subscribers via its password sharing crackdown and through the introduction of cheaper advertiser-supported plans, the streamer knows that its growth spurts are coming to an end — and now it wants investors to stop obsessing over those pesky membership numbers and instead focus on other metrics.

"In our early days, when we had little revenue or profit, membership growth was a strong indicator of our future potential. But now we're generating very substantial profit and free cash flow. We are also developing new revenue streams like advertising and our extra member feature, so memberships are just one component of our growth", Netflix told shareholders as it reported quarterly earnings.

To that end, Netflix said that it will no longer report quarterly subscriber numbers, starting in 2025. Alas, the metric that Wall Street has forever judged Netflix on — the metric that prompted legacy media companies to burn endless piles of cash in their bids to compete with the streamer — will be retired. The decision to shut off transparency on the metric represents a significant turning point in the streaming revolution. For years, Netflix has prided itself on being extraordinarily transparent. Now it is aiming to hold its cards closer to its chest. And given that streaming giant is the trendsetter in the space, one could expect that other media companies will be inspired by the company's move and also opt to cease reporting such data.

To be fair, what Netflix is saying isn't necessarily off base either. As the company shifts its business model away from subscriptions and toward advertising and other revenue streams, it makes sense to consider how much time users are spending on the service. The more content a user consumes on Netflix, the more likely they are to continue paying for the service, and the more money Netflix then makes from that single subscriber. "We're focused on revenue and operating margin as our primary financial metrics — and engagement (i.e. time spent) as our best proxy for customer satisfaction,” Netflix underscored in its letter to shareholders.

Regardless, less transparency in an already opaque industry is not ideal. The walled garden of streaming already lacks the same detailed viewership data that Nielsen collects on linear television broadcasters. Now, visibility into the streaming world will get even dimmer.

The announcement from Netflix managed to overshadow its otherwise stellar quarter. The company handily beat expectations and added a staggering 9.3 million subscribers, meaning it now boasts nearly 270 million in total. Netflix also beat analyst expectations on both earnings and revenue. However, it wasn't all good news. Netflix forecasted its subscriber growth to be lower in quarter two, chalking it up to “typical seasonality.” That led the stock to slide nearly 5% in after-hours trading.

Whether "typical seasonality” is solely to blame, or whether the streamer is simply starting to hit a ceiling, is hard to tell. Perhaps it is a mix of both. Whatever the cause, the stock sliding on the less-than-ideal outlook is a prime example of why Netflix wants Wall Street to stop focusing on its subscriber numbers. And, in one year's time, investors won't have a choice.

Adapted from: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/19/media/netflix-subscription-numbers/index.html

O texto seguinte servirá de base para responder à questão.

Pontus

Pontus is a non-playable faction in Rome: Total War. Pontus was a Hellenistic Kingdom on the southern coast of the Black Sea.

Pontus are an eastern faction, based in Asia Minor (Modern-day Turkey), having their origins with an ambitious Persian noble who siezed the area when Alexander's empire broke up. They were best known for their support for the pirates of Cilicia and their subsequent defeat by Pompey.

A refreshingly different faction, Pontus are similar in some ways to the Seleucids, but mainly they are unique. With a large amount of missile cavalry, chariots chariot archers, Cappadocian Lancers and Pikemen, they have a different balance to most factions, while not severely lacking in any department except heavy infantry.

Pontus is a small faction in Asia Minor. While their army is relatively weak at the low initial development levels of Asia Minor, Asia Minor itself is a relatively easy part of the map to take and hold. Trade and growth are relatively good around the area and Rhodes, Crete and the Seleucids are soon ripe for the picking. Tactically, Pontus are an eastern faction. Expect to field a mobile army of mainly missile units. There are Macedonian-influenced Pikemen though, allowing a solid infantry line to be made when dealing with the western armies and to provide more strategic options.

Pontus have mostly the basic eastern units, but with skirmisher cavalry instead of mounted archers. Scythed Chariots and Chariot Archers are also available, allowing further flexibility. The infantry is a little ticklish at times though; The early infantry suffers from poor morale and a lack of stopping power, although Eastern Infantry are very good at stopping enemy chariots. Pikemen and Cappadocian Lancers are available later on though, allowing more Seleucid-influenced tactics to be used to good effect.

It was founded by Mithridates I in 291 BC and lasted until its conquest by the Roman Empire in 63 BC. Despite being ruled by a dynasty which was a descendant of the Persian Achaemenid Empire it became hellenized due to the influence of the Greeks on the black sea and the smaller Hellenistic kingdoms in the Middle East. Pontus grew to its largest extent under Mithridates VI the great, who conquered Colchis, Cappadocia, Bithynia, Lesser Armenia, the Greek colonies of the Tauric Chersonesosand for a brief time the Roman province of Asia.

Pontus starts in north and east Asia Minor, north of the Seleucid Empire, and west of Armenia. Their cities are:

Sinope - Pontic Capital; Region - Pontus

Mazaka - Pontic Large Town; Region - Cappadocia

Pontus infantry units include the feared Bronze Shield Pikemen, the elite of the army of Pontus, among the heirs of the world-conquering phalanxes of Alexander the Great. Pontus has effective cavalry including Cappadocian Cavalry, which are are excellent horsemen, best suited to charging into and breaking through enemy formations with their lances. Pontic heavy cavalry are javelin-armed horsemen who can also fight hand-to-hand - a potent combination in one force.

After a long struggle with Rome in the Mithridatic wars, Pontus was defeated, part of it was incorporated into the Roman Empire as the province Bithynia et Pontus and the eastern half survived as a client Kingdom. The Bosporan Kingdom also remained independent under Pharnaces II as an ally and friend of Rome. Colchis was also made into a client Kingdom. Pharnaces II later made an attempt at reconquering Pontus. During the civil war of Caesar and Pompey, he invaded Asia Minor, taking Colchis, lesser Armenia, Pontus and Cappadocia and defeating a Roman army at Nicopolis. Caesar responded swiftly and defeated him at Zela, where he uttered the famous phrase 'Veni, Vidi, Vici' (i came, i saw, i conquered). Pontic kings continued to rule the client Kingdom of Pontus, Colchis and Cilicia until Polemon II was finally forced to abdicate the Pontic throne by the Romans in 62 AD.

https://totalwar.fandom.com/wiki/Pontus

O texto seguinte servirá de base para responder à questão.

The Future of Global Economy and Society

Characters:

Emma: A professor of International Relations.

John: A journalist specializing in global economics.

Sophia: An environmental activist and policy advisor.

Emma: Good afternoon, everyone. Today, I'd like to delve into the intricacies of the global economy and its impact on society. As we navigate through these unprecedented times, what do you think are the key drivers reshaping our world?

John: From my perspective, the most significant factor is the acceleration of technological innovation. The digital economy is not just expanding; it's revolutionizing traditional sectors. Artificial Intelligence, blockchain technology, and the Internet of Things are all converging, creating a paradigm shift in how we understand and conduct business.

Sophia: I agree, John. However, I would argue that while technological advancement is transformative, it also presents ethical dilemmas. The digital divide is growing, and the disparity between those who have access to these technologies and those who don't is becoming a critical issue. Moreover, the implications for data privacy and surveillance are profound and cannot be overlooked.

Emma: That's an excellent point, Sophia. The ethical implications are vast. But moving beyond technology, how do you see geopolitical tensions influencing global economic stability?

John: Geopolitical tensions have always played a pivotal role. However, with the recent rise of protectionist policies and trade wars, we are witnessing a fragmentation of the global economic order. Countries are increasingly prioritizing national interests, which could lead to a significant realignment of global alliances and trade networks.

Sophia: And this realignment is not without consequences. We must consider the environmental impact as well. The current economic model, heavily reliant on fossil fuels, is unsustainable. We need a radical transition towards a green economy, and that requires international cooperation—something that's hard to achieve amid rising nationalism.

Emma: Absolutely. The concept of a green economy is gaining traction, but there's a lot of skepticism about its feasibility, especially in developing countries where economic growth is still heavily dependent on traditional industries. What are your thoughts on this?

John: It's indeed a delicate balancing act. Developing nations argue that stringent environmental regulations could stifle their economic growth and exacerbatepoverty. On the other hand, the consequences of inaction could be catastrophic, not just for these countries, but globally. Perhaps the solution lies in creating financial incentives for sustainable development.

Sophia: That's where policy-making becomes crucial. We need to implement more robust frameworks for international cooperation that include financial support, technology transfer, and capacity building. The global north has a historical responsibility to assist the global south in this transition.

Emma: These are compelling insights. It's clear that the path forward is complex and requires a multifaceted approach. Balancing technological, economic, environmental, and ethical considerations is a formidable challenge. However, it's also an opportunity for us to redefine the future of global society.

John: I couldn't agree more, Emma. The question is not whether we will face these challenges, but how we will respond to them collectively.

Sophia: Exactly. It's not just about adapting to change but about proactively shaping it. We must engage in more dialogue, foster innovation, and, above all, uphold our shared values of equity, justice, and sustainability.

Emma: Well said, Sophia. I believe our discussion today has highlighted the interconnectedness of these issues and the importance of global solidarity. Thank you both for this enlightening conversation.

John and Sophia: Thank you, Emma.

O texto seguinte servirá de base para responder à questão.

The Future of Global Economy and Society

Characters:

Emma: A professor of International Relations.

John: A journalist specializing in global economics.

Sophia: An environmental activist and policy advisor.

Emma: Good afternoon, everyone. Today, I'd like to delve into the intricacies of the global economy and its impact on society. As we navigate through these unprecedented times, what do you think are the key drivers reshaping our world?

John: From my perspective, the most significant factor is the acceleration of technological innovation. The digital economy is not just expanding; it's revolutionizing traditional sectors. Artificial Intelligence, blockchain technology, and the Internet of Things are all converging, creating a paradigm shift in how we understand and conduct business.

Sophia: I agree, John. However, I would argue that while technological advancement is transformative, it also presents ethical dilemmas. The digital divide is growing, and the disparity between those who have access to these technologies and those who don't is becoming a critical issue. Moreover, the implications for data privacy and surveillance are profound and cannot be overlooked.

Emma: That's an excellent point, Sophia. The ethical implications are vast. But moving beyond technology, how do you see geopolitical tensions influencing global economic stability?

John: Geopolitical tensions have always played a pivotal role. However, with the recent rise of protectionist policies and trade wars, we are witnessing a fragmentation of the global economic order. Countries are increasingly prioritizing national interests, which could lead to a significant realignment of global alliances and trade networks.

Sophia: And this realignment is not without consequences. We must consider the environmental impact as well. The current economic model, heavily reliant on fossil fuels, is unsustainable. We need a radical transition towards a green economy, and that requires international cooperation—something that's hard to achieve amid rising nationalism.

Emma: Absolutely. The concept of a green economy is gaining traction, but there's a lot of skepticism about its feasibility, especially in developing countries where economic growth is still heavily dependent on traditional industries. What are your thoughts on this?

John: It's indeed a delicate balancing act. Developing nations argue that stringent environmental regulations could stifle their economic growth and exacerbatepoverty. On the other hand, the consequences of inaction could be catastrophic, not just for these countries, but globally. Perhaps the solution lies in creating financial incentives for sustainable development.

Sophia: That's where policy-making becomes crucial. We need to implement more robust frameworks for international cooperation that include financial support, technology transfer, and capacity building. The global north has a historical responsibility to assist the global south in this transition.

Emma: These are compelling insights. It's clear that the path forward is complex and requires a multifaceted approach. Balancing technological, economic, environmental, and ethical considerations is a formidable challenge. However, it's also an opportunity for us to redefine the future of global society.

John: I couldn't agree more, Emma. The question is not whether we will face these challenges, but how we will respond to them collectively.

Sophia: Exactly. It's not just about adapting to change but about proactively shaping it. We must engage in more dialogue, foster innovation, and, above all, uphold our shared values of equity, justice, and sustainability.

Emma: Well said, Sophia. I believe our discussion today has highlighted the interconnectedness of these issues and the importance of global solidarity. Thank you both for this enlightening conversation.

John and Sophia: Thank you, Emma.

T E X T

Britain, Norway and the United States join forces with businesses to protect tropical forests.

Britain, Norway and the United States said Thursday they would join forces with some of the world’s biggest companies in an effort to rally more than $1 billion for countries that can show they are lowering emissions by protecting tropical forests. The goal is to make intact forests more economically valuable than they would be if the land were cleared for timber and agriculture.

The initiative comes as the world loses acre after acre of forests to feed global demand for soy, palm oil, timber and cattle. Those forests, from Brazil to Indonesia, are essential to limiting the linked crises of climate change and a global biodiversity collapse. They are also home to Indigenous and other forest communities. Amazon, Nestlé, Unilever, GlaxoSmithKline and Salesforce are among the companies promising money for the new initiative, known as the LEAF Coalition.

Last year, despite the global downturn triggered by the pandemic, tropical deforestation was up 12 percent from 2019, collectively wiping out an area about the size of Switzerland. That destruction released about twice as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as cars in the United States emit annually.

“The LEAF Coalition is a groundbreaking example of the scale and type of collaboration that is needed to fight the climate crisis and achieve net-zero emissions globally by 2050,” John Kerry, President Biden’s senior climate envoy, said in a statement. “Bringing together government and privatesector resources is a necessary step in supporting the large-scale efforts that must be mobilized to halt deforestation and begin to restore tropical and subtropical forests.”

An existing global effort called REDD+ has struggled to attract sufficient investment and gotten mired in bureaucratic slowdowns. This initiative builds on it, bringing private capital to the table at the country or state level. Until now, companies have invested in forests more informally, sometimes supporting questionable projects that prompted accusations of corruption and “greenwashing,” when a company or brand portrays itself as an environmental steward but its true actions don’t support the claim.

The new initiative will use satellite imagery to verify results across wide areas to guard against those problems. Monitoring entire jurisdictions would, in theory, prevent governments from saving forestland in one place only to let it be cut down elsewhere.

Under the plan, countries, states or provinces with tropical forests would commit to reducing deforestation and degradation. Each year or two, they would submit their results, calculating the number of tons of carbon dioxide reduced by their efforts. An independent monitor would verify their claims using satellite images and other measures. Companies and governments would contribute to a pool of money that would pay the national or regional government at least $10 per ton of reduced carbon dioxide.

Companies will not be allowed to participate unless they have a scientifically sound plan to reach net zero emissions, according to Nigel Purvis, the chief executive of Climate Advisers, a group affiliated with the initiative. “Their number one obligation to the world from a climate standpoint is to reduce their own emissions across their supply chains, across their products, everything,” Mr. Purvis said. He also emphasized that the coalition’s plans would respect the rights of Indigenous and forest communities.

From: www.nytimes.com/April 22, 2021

T E X T

Britain, Norway and the United States join forces with businesses to protect tropical forests.

Britain, Norway and the United States said Thursday they would join forces with some of the world’s biggest companies in an effort to rally more than $1 billion for countries that can show they are lowering emissions by protecting tropical forests. The goal is to make intact forests more economically valuable than they would be if the land were cleared for timber and agriculture.

The initiative comes as the world loses acre after acre of forests to feed global demand for soy, palm oil, timber and cattle. Those forests, from Brazil to Indonesia, are essential to limiting the linked crises of climate change and a global biodiversity collapse. They are also home to Indigenous and other forest communities. Amazon, Nestlé, Unilever, GlaxoSmithKline and Salesforce are among the companies promising money for the new initiative, known as the LEAF Coalition.

Last year, despite the global downturn triggered by the pandemic, tropical deforestation was up 12 percent from 2019, collectively wiping out an area about the size of Switzerland. That destruction released about twice as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as cars in the United States emit annually.

“The LEAF Coalition is a groundbreaking example of the scale and type of collaboration that is needed to fight the climate crisis and achieve net-zero emissions globally by 2050,” John Kerry, President Biden’s senior climate envoy, said in a statement. “Bringing together government and privatesector resources is a necessary step in supporting the large-scale efforts that must be mobilized to halt deforestation and begin to restore tropical and subtropical forests.”

An existing global effort called REDD+ has struggled to attract sufficient investment and gotten mired in bureaucratic slowdowns. This initiative builds on it, bringing private capital to the table at the country or state level. Until now, companies have invested in forests more informally, sometimes supporting questionable projects that prompted accusations of corruption and “greenwashing,” when a company or brand portrays itself as an environmental steward but its true actions don’t support the claim.

The new initiative will use satellite imagery to verify results across wide areas to guard against those problems. Monitoring entire jurisdictions would, in theory, prevent governments from saving forestland in one place only to let it be cut down elsewhere.

Under the plan, countries, states or provinces with tropical forests would commit to reducing deforestation and degradation. Each year or two, they would submit their results, calculating the number of tons of carbon dioxide reduced by their efforts. An independent monitor would verify their claims using satellite images and other measures. Companies and governments would contribute to a pool of money that would pay the national or regional government at least $10 per ton of reduced carbon dioxide.

Companies will not be allowed to participate unless they have a scientifically sound plan to reach net zero emissions, according to Nigel Purvis, the chief executive of Climate Advisers, a group affiliated with the initiative. “Their number one obligation to the world from a climate standpoint is to reduce their own emissions across their supply chains, across their products, everything,” Mr. Purvis said. He also emphasized that the coalition’s plans would respect the rights of Indigenous and forest communities.

From: www.nytimes.com/April 22, 2021