Search

9 tricky ways to clean your house while you sleep

1. Soak a showerhead Mineral deposits can clog a showerhead and affect its pressure over time. To clean, fill a plastic bag with vinegar. Place the bag around the showerhead, submerging it in the liquid. Secure the bag to the neck of the showerhead with a twist tie and leave overnight. The vinegar will break down the buildup by morning. 2. Remove stains on pots and pans If a batch of cookies left your baking sheet gunky, let a dryer sheet clean it overnight. Place the sheet on the pan and fill with warm water. Cleaning agents in the dryer sheet will help loosen stuck-on grime and stains. In the morning, easily wipe off with a sponge. 3. Polish stove grates Cleaning greasy, food-splattered stove burners can be a tiresome chore. Before you go to bed, seal each burner in a large plastic bag with ¼ cup of ammonia. The overnight soak will make it easy to wipe off the surface with a sponge the following day. 4. Banish rust on tools If your rusty tools have seen better days, fill a tray with Coca-Cola. Submerge the tools, allow to soak overnight, and scrub clean with a stiff brush in the morning. The soda’s phosphoric acid will help loosen the gunk. 5. Eliminate wet messes If your sofa or carpet became the victim of an icky, wet mess (say, vomit or urine), mix a paste of baking soda and water to soak it up. Use a spoon to spread the paste over the soiled area. Allow to dry overnight, then vacuum in the morning. 6. Descale a kettle Limescale can build up from calcium carbonate deposits in water, leading to an off-white, chalky deposit in your kettle. To clean, cut a lemon into large slices, place in the kettle, and add water. Bring to a boil, then take the kettle off the heat and leave overnight. The lemon’s citric acid will loosen the limescale. Toss the fruit and water mixture in the morning and rinse before using your newly cleaned kettle. 7. Clean bath toys To make grubby rubber duckies, boats, and other bath toys new again, mix one gallon warm water with ¾ cup vinegar. Soak the toys overnight. Rinse thoroughly and allow to air dry. 8. Make diamonds sparkle Quickly polish a diamond ring by filling a bottle cap with Windex. Soak the ring overnight and dry with a soft cloth in the morning to remove grime and add shine. 9. Remove red wine stains If red wine marked up your favorite garment, sprinkle the stain with salt and cover with club soda. The salt absorbs the stain while the club soda’s carbonation and sodium helps lift it. Leave overnight before laundering. Image credits: Getty Images This article originally appeared on <a href="https://www.readersdigest.co.nz/diy-tips/9-ways-clean-house-your-sleep" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Reader's Digest</a>.

Home & Garden

Advice on dealing with tricky in-laws

From heated discussions to awkward family dinners, your relationship with your in-laws can have a big impact on family time. Here’s how to navigate this sometimes tricky dynamic. There’s nothing worse than heading to a family engagement when you have a son-in-law (or your daughter’s parents-in-law) that you just don’t get along with. Whether there's been a fight that you haven’t been able to move on from, or you simply don’t get along, if you find your in-laws draining or annoying, you may need to change the boundaries. Do you know the old saying, “good fences make good neighbours”? Think of your in-laws like your neighbours – there needs to be really good fences (aka boundaries) in place for the relationship to run smoothly. The best way to go about this is in such a way that you don’t make anyone feel as though you're closing them out, but rather comes off that you are simply focussing on yourself and things you have going on. Once you’ve set boundaries, don’t be afraid to talk to your family and in-laws about them, they’re not as fragile as you think. But do choose your words carefully and keep the focus on you and what your needs are, rather than making any judgements or comments about them or their behaviour. Still not sure how to deal with your son, daughter, sister or brother in-law? Here are some top tips for setting boundaries and dealing with awkward situations: <ol> <li>The person with the primary relationship (for example your daughter, not your son-in-law) should be the one to step in and help fix a problem if it arises. You should never be the messenger or go straight to an in-law. Gently raise the issue or concern with your immediate family member. </li> <li>Decide with your partner, or in your own time if you are single or widowed, what type of role you want your in-law/s to play in your life. If you don’t get along and spending time with them just seems to cause issues, then you might want to limit catch-ups to birthdays and big events. This is ok. Just be gentle if asked to explain. And keep your explanation brief and about you. Something along the lines of, my schedule is quite busy at the moment or I don’t feel up to going out too much, but I am looking forward to the next family get together. </li> <li>Never criticise your family for their relationship with his or her spouse/your in-laws, nor comment on your in-law to your immediate family member – for example don’t criticise your son-in-law to your daughter/his wife. This tends to only lead to complications and awkwardness. And remember, you only know what your daughter tells you and if they come to you everytime they’re upset or angry with their partner or their partner’s extended family, you’re only hearing the problems when your daughter is frustrated and upset. You might not hear all the good things and about when they make up. Don’t take these things on board and stay out of it by reserving any judgement or comments. </li> <li>Don’t get involved. Easier said than done, right? You have to trust that you have brought your children up right and they are responsible enough to navigate their own relationships, treat others respectfully and can stand up for themselves if need be. As such, you should not get involved in their issues, arguments and general day-to-day dealings with their other relationships. Stay on the peripheral, be there for some light guidance if need be, but ultimately you should just help them come to their own opinions, decisions and judgements on things rather than sharing your ones with them. </li> <li>Don’t get pulled into arguments by your child and in-law. You can be supportive and still let the couple handle their own problems. Take a step back and trust that you have raised an adult who has the vision and the courage to resolve the problems that concern his/her own family. Couples need to set boundaries for their own relationships and this can, as I am sure you know, take some time to find the right ones. </li> <li>Think of yourself as a guest. When spending time with family in big groups, and especially when you’re at someone else’s home, it is best to think of yourself as a guest and act accordingly. For example you may not like the way you son’s wife is doing things in her home (child rearing, cooking, cleaning etc), but unfortunately it is not really any of your business. This is between your son and his wife. A good checkpoint is to ask yourself if you have a sense of entitlement and expectancy that is inappropriate. If there are issues that you just can’t stand but can’t let go, then you may need to consider not visiting them.</li> </ol> Image credits: Getty Images

Family & Pets

The tricky notion of ‘value’ in the arts

There’s plenty of discussion about arts funding in Australia – but are we ready to tackle tough questions around the “value” of the arts? That’s a challenge that will involve scrutinising the “benefits” delivered by arts programs and rethinking some of our ideas about impact. Recently these questions have been framed in terms of measurement – a phenomenon that has to do with an increased emphasis on what is termed the “<a href="https://theconversation.com/go-on-then-what-are-the-creative-industries-18958">creative</a>” or “cultural” industries. <h2>Welcome to the arts industry</h2> Governments and policy makers concerned with the allocation of scarce resources, and with the demise of traditional economic drivers for development, have turned to these sectors as areas of potential growth. The word “industry” nicely moves the whole area away from anything “non-productive”. This framing of the arts as an industry has fuelled the sometimes strident debate over funding models for the arts, particularly when a funding cut has taken place. Yet for better or worse, the arts and related cultural phenomena represent activities that now have value and benefits for government – so there will be policy delivered upon art producers regardless of the debate. The key issues for all is defining and measuring all the possible permutations of value. <h2>Intrinsic and instrumental benefits</h2> Some clarification is possible if we separate instrumental benefits from intrinsic benefits. Instrumental benefits are those that pertain to social, economic or policy outcomes. An outcome of a community-based theatre production might be to involve disadvantaged sectors of the community, thereby increasing social inclusion. Similarly, a sculpture trail might be established in an economically-depressed region, with the aim of increasing local employment. Such benefits are increasingly cited in the conversations surrounding the impact of the arts. The intrinsic benefits of the arts are less obvious. While not being ignored by arts organisations, and of interest to many artists, the “impact” of art on an individual, a community or on society is a nebulous concept. How did the art resonate with the viewer? Was the community intellectually stimulated? Did the art make a lasting impression? Did it increase social bonding? Much of the policy work done on measuring intrinsic impact is done in the performing arts. Theatre, opera and music companies have a particular interest in measuring intrinsic impact, as their revenue streams rely on a paying audience, and indeed one that returns for future performances. Intrinsic impact factors such as audience engagement and stimulation are part of the concept of “<a href="http://www.australiacouncil.gov.au/resources/reports_and_publications/subjects/arts_sector/artisticvibrancy">artistic vibrancy</a>” that the Australia Council uses as a criterion in its <a href="http://www.australiacouncil.gov.au/artisticreflectionkit">Artistic Reflection Kit</a> for arts organisations. <h2>Did the art make a difference?</h2> There is little to guide us in understanding such issues in a broader arts context. Certainly museums and galleries, as well as major events such as the <a href="http://www.biennaleofsydney.com.au/">Biennale of Sydney</a> undertake visitor surveys. But their findings are frequently framed in relation to audience development or marketing strategy. Engagement sometimes simply means: how many people went, and where were they from? While this sort of information is vital in a world where competition for the cultural tourist is fierce, it does not assist us in understanding the basic question of whether the art, in whatever form, made a “difference” to those that viewed it (however that may be defined) and how that might be considered a “value”. Of course, it can be argued such a question is irrelevant in an artistic sense. Many see any measurement of artistic value as further evidence of the commodification of art. Art producers frequently reject the materialistic concept of “product” being applied to their creative output, and clearly consumer demand is not generally the primary driving force behind art and other cultural-based production. <h2>Product-driven artists</h2> Even so, artists do need to be product-driven. If they are not they risk their artistic integrity, the very thing that challenges their audiences. This means that conventional techniques to “sell” artistic production do not necessarily work. For any exhibitor of challenging art this is a common problem. Do you keep churning out those room-filling blockbuster exhibitions – or curate something that your audience might potentially not actually like? Perhaps splitting value into instrumental benefits and intrinsic benefits is actually unhelpful because it artificially separates the individual/ community/ emotional from the policy/ economic. By this I mean that if a concert does not engage and resonate with visitors by having some intrinsic value, then any other subsequent instrumental benefit simply does not flow on. In other words, if the audience does not like the art, they will not “consume” it (buy, view, etc.). <h2>Art for individuals and communities</h2> For me, taking such an holistic view of artistic endeavours recognises that there is an interconnectedness between individual benefits and societal benefits that is indeed important. What benefits the individual may well benefit that individual’s community – and vice versa. Does this make impact any easier to measure? Or value any easier to define? Perhaps not immediately. But it does provide an alternative way of conceptualising value in the arts, one that may be used to reframe a debate that tends to be weighted toward measuring instrumental benefits. It’s not just that funding bodies find it easier to measure instrumental benefits, it’s that the intrinsic value of art is, by its very nature, difficult to measure. How do you measure intellectual stimulation? Emotional engagement? Joy? Sure, there is research conducted in these areas, but it is not finding its way into the debate over the value of the arts. And until it does the arts will continue to be valued more for its role as a driver of economic development than as a cure for the soul – or worse still, not valued at all. Image credits: Getty Images This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-tricky-notion-of-value-in-the-arts-20408" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>.

Art

Big-business greenwash or a climate saviour? Carbon offsets raise tricky moral questions

Massive protests unfolded in Glasgow outside the United Nations climate summit <a href="https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2021/11/net-zero-is-not-zero-carbon-offsetting-focus-at-cop26-under-criticism/">last week</a>, with some activists <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/cop26/cop26-indigenous-carbon-protests-video-v417423df">denouncing</a> a proposal to expand the use of a controversial climate action measure to meet net-zero targets: carbon offsetting. Offsetting <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-cant-stabilise-the-climate-without-carbon-offsets-so-how-do-we-make-them-work-169355">refers to</a> reducing emissions or removing carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere in one place to balance emissions made in another. So far, more than 130 countries have committed to the net zero by 2050 goal, but none is proposing to be completely emissions free by that date – all are relying on forms of offsetting. The use of offsets in meeting climate obligations has been <a href="https://www.greenpeace.org/international/press-release/50429/offsets-taskforce-hit-protests-cop26/">rejected by climate activists</a> as a “scam”. Swedish climate campaigner <a href="https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1455904676227002375?s=20">Greta Thunberg</a>, joining the protesters, claimed relying on buying offsets to cut emissions would give polluters “a free pass to keep polluting”. Others, however, argue offsetting has a legitimate role to play in our transition to a low-carbon future. A <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/towards-net-zero-practical-policies-to-offset-carbon-emissions/">recent report</a> by Australia’s Grattan Institute, for example, claimed that done <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-cant-stabilise-the-climate-without-carbon-offsets-so-how-do-we-make-them-work-169355">with integrity</a>, carbon offsets will be crucial to reaching net zero in sectors such as agriculture and aviation, for which full elimination of emissions is infeasible. So who’s in the right? We think the answer depends on the kind of offsetting that is being employed. Some forms of offsetting can be a legitimate way of helping to reach net zero, while others are morally dubious. <h2>Climate change as a moral issue</h2> The debate over offsetting is part of a key agenda item for COP26 – establishing the rules for global carbon trading, <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/as-cop26-climate-summit-continues-attention-turns-to-carbon-markets/">known as Article 6</a> of the Paris Agreement. The trading scheme will allow countries to purchase emissions reductions from overseas to count towards their own climate action. To examine carbon offsetting in a moral context, we should first remember what makes our contributions to CO₂ emissions morally problematic. <iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pHLVDlb6rCU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe> The emissions from human activity increase the risks of <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar3/wg2/chapter-1-overview-of-impacts-adaptation-and-vulnerability-to-climate-change/">climate change-related harms</a> such as dangerous weather events – storms, fires, floods, heatwaves, and droughts – and the prevalence of serious diseases and malnutrition. The more we humans emit, the more we contribute to global warming, and the greater the risks of harm to the most vulnerable people. Climate change is a moral issue because of the question this invites on behalf of those people: <blockquote> Why are you adding to global warming, when it risks harming us severely? </blockquote> Not having a good answer to that question is what makes our contribution to climate change seriously wrong. <h2>The two ways to offset emissions</h2> The moral case in favour of offsetting is it gives us an answer to that question. If we can match our emissions with a corresponding amount of offsetting, then can’t we say we’re making no net addition to global warming, and therefore imposing no risk of harm on anyone? Well, that depends on what kind of offsetting we’re doing. Offsetting comes in two forms, which are morally quite different. The first kind of offsetting involves removing CO₂ from the atmosphere. Planting trees or other vegetation is one way of doing this, provided the CO₂ that’s removed does not then re-enter the atmosphere later, for example as a result of deforestation. Another way would be through the development of <a href="https://eciu.net/analysis/briefings/net-zero/negative-emissions-why-what-how">negative emissions technologies</a>, which envisage ways to extract CO₂ from the atmosphere and store it permanently. The second form is offsetting by paying for emissions reduction. This involves ensuring someone else puts less CO₂ into the atmosphere than they otherwise would have. For example, one company might pay another company to reduce its emissions, with the first claiming this reduction as an offset against its own emissions. Australia’s Clean Energy Regulator issues <a href="http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/OSR/ANREU/types-of-emissions-units/australian-carbon-credit-units">Australian Carbon Credit Units</a> for “eligible offsets projects”. These include for projects of offsetting by emissions reduction. The regulator certifies that a company, for example, installing more efficient technology “deliver abatement that is additional to what would occur in the absence of the project”. Another company whose activities send CO₂ into the atmosphere, such as a coal-fired power station, can then buy these credits to offset its emissions. <h2>So what’s the problem?</h2> There is a crucial difference between these <a href="https://www.offsetguide.org/understanding-carbon-offsets/what-is-a-carbon-offset/">two forms of offsetting</a>. When you offset in the first way – taking as much CO₂ out of the atmosphere as you put in – you can indeed say you’re not adding to global warming. That’s not to say even this form of offsetting is problem-free. It’s crucial such offsets are properly validated and are part of a transition plan to cleaner energy generation compatible with everyone reaching net zero together. Tree-planting cannot be a complete solution, because we could simply <a href="https://theconversation.com/there-arent-enough-trees-in-the-world-to-offset-societys-carbon-emissions-and-there-never-will-be-158181">run out of places</a> to plant them. But when you offset in the second way, you cannot say you’re not adding to global warming at all. What you’re doing is paying someone else not to add to global warming, while adding to it yourself. The difference between the two forms of offsetting is like the difference between a mining company releasing mercury into the groundwater while simultaneously cleaning the water to restore the mercury concentration to safe levels, and a mining company paying another not to release mercury into the groundwater and then doing so itself. The first can be a legitimate way of negating the risk you impose. The second is a way of imposing risk in someone else’s stead. Let’s use a few simple analogies to illustrate this further. In morality and law, we cannot justify injuring someone by claiming we had previously paid someone who was about to injure that same person not to do so. The same is true when it comes to the imposition of risk. If I take a high speed joyride through a heavily populated area, I cannot claim I pose no risk on people nearby simply because I had earlier paid my neighbour not to take a joyride along the same route. Had I not induced my neighbour not to take the joyride, he would’ve had to answer for the risk he imposed. When I do so in his place, I am the one who must answer for that risk. In our desperate attempt to stop the world warming beyond the internationally agreed limit of 1.5℃, we need to encourage whatever reduces the climate impacts of human activity. If selling carbon credits is an effective way to achieve this, we should do it, creating incentives for emissions reductions as well as emissions removals. What we cannot do is claim that inducing others to reduce emissions gives us a moral license to emit in their place.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/171295/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/christian-barry-14000">Christian Barry</a>, Professor of Philosophy at the ANU, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-national-university-877">Australian National University</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/garrett-cullity-1287732">Garrett Cullity</a>, Professor, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-national-university-877">Australian National University</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/big-business-greenwash-or-a-climate-saviour-carbon-offsets-raise-tricky-moral-questions-171295">original article</a>. Image: EPA/Robert Perry

International Travel

Your brain approaches tricky tasks in a surprisingly simple way

Have you ever sat down to complete your morning crossword or Sudoku and wondered about what’s happening in your brain? Somewhere in the activity of the billions of neurons in your brain lies the code that lets you remember a key word, or apply the logic required to complete the puzzle. Given the brain’s intricacy, you might assume that these patterns are incredibly complex and unique to each task. But <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-018-0312-0">recent research</a> suggests things are actually more straightforward than that. It turns out that many structures in your brain work together in precise ways to coordinate their activity, shaping their actions to the requirements of whatever it is that you’re trying to achieve. We call these coordinated patterns the “low-dimensional manifold”, which you can think of as analogous to the major roadways that you use to commute to and from work. The majority of the traffic flows along these major highways, which represent an efficient and effective way to get from A to B. We have found evidence that most brain activity follows these types of patterns. In very simple terms, this saves your brain from needing to work everything out from scratch when performing a task. If someone throws you a ball, for instance, the low-dimensional manifold allows your brain to swiftly coordinate the muscle movements needed to catch the ball, rather than your brain needing to learn how to catch a ball afresh each time. In a study <a href="https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(19)30775-5">published today in the journal Neuron</a>, my colleagues and I investigated these patterns further. Specifically, we wanted to find out whether they play a role in shaping brain activity during really challenging cognitive tasks that require lots of concentration. We scanned people’s brains with high-resolution functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) while they performed a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_square">Latin squares task</a>, which is similar to a Sudoku puzzle but uses shapes instead of numbers. Anyone who has played Sudoku before their morning coffee knows how much focus and concentration is required to solve it. The idea behind the Latin squares task is to identify the missing shape in a particular location in a grid, given that each shape can only show up once in each row and column. We created three different levels of difficulty, defined by how many different rows and columns needed to be inspected to arrive at the correct answer. Directing traffic Our prediction was that performing the more difficult versions of the task would lead to a reconfiguration of the low-dimensional manifold. To return to the highway analogy, a tricky task might pull some brain activity off the highway and onto the back streets to help get around the congestion. Our results confirmed our predictions. More difficult trials showed different patterns of brain activation to easy ones, as if the brain’s traffic was being rerouted along different roads. The trickier the task, the more the patterns changed. What’s more, we also found a link between these changed brain activation patterns and the increased likelihood of making a mistake on the harder version of the Latin Squares test. In a way, attempting a difficult task is like trying out a new rat run on your morning commute – you might succeed, but in your haste and stress you might also be more likely to take a wrong turn. Overall, these results suggests that our brain activity perhaps isn’t as complicated as we once thought. Most of the time, our brain is directing traffic along pretty well-established routes, and even when it needs to get creative it is still trying to send the traffic to the same ultimate destination. This leaves us with an important question: how does the brain achieve this level of coordination? One possibility is that this function is fulfilled by the <a href="https://www.britannica.com/science/thalamus">thalamus</a>, a structure that lies deep in the brain but is connected to almost the entire rest of the brain. Importantly, the circuitry of the thalamus is such that it can act as a filter for ongoing activity in the cerebral cortex, the brain’s main information processing centre, and therefore could exert the kind of influence we were looking for. <a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298044/original/file-20191022-28112-nv7utl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298044/original/file-20191022-28112-nv7utl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" alt="" /></a> Positions of the thalamus and the cerebral cortex within the brain. Pikovit/Shutterstock Patterns of activity in the thalamus are hard to decipher in traditional neuroimaging experiments. But fortunately, the <a href="https://cai.centre.uq.edu.au/facilities/human-imaging/7t-magnetom">high-resolution MRI scanner used in our study</a> collected by my colleagues Luca Cocchi and Luke Hearne allowed us to observe them in detail. Sure enough, we saw a clear link between activity in the thalamus and the flow of activity in the low-dimensional manifold. This suggests that when performing particular tasks, the thalamus helps to shape and constrain the activity in the cortex, a bit like a police officer directing busy traffic. So next time you sit down to play Sudoku, spare a thought for your thalamus, and the low-dimensional manifold that it helps to create. Together, they’re shaping the brain activity that will ultimately help you solve the puzzle.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/124891/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/james-shine-730758">James Shine</a>, Robinson Fellow, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sydney-841">University of Sydney</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/your-brain-approaches-tricky-tasks-in-a-surprisingly-simple-way-124891">original article</a>.

Mind

5 tricky family members and how to deal with them

Here are some of the most common ‘types’ of tricky relatives – and how to deal with them before your next family gathering implodes. Essential reading before the festive season! 1. The Loudmouth Every family has an opinionated loudmouth who likes to stir the pot – be it touching on red-button topics (‘Got a boyfriend yet, Emily?’), or revealing family secrets (like the fact that Cousin Hannah recently left her husband for another woman). You don’t have to engage, says psychologist Jacqui Manning, but if the Loudmouth is upsetting other family members, jump in and swiftly change the subject. “Saying ‘Kate! I’ve been dying to ask how your new business is going’ can divert the flow,” she suggests. “In the case of gossip, say something like, ‘Tim, that’s not common knowledge and I know Hannah wouldn’t like us discussing her situation, so let’s move on please’.” 2. The Radical One Radical family members are easy to spot; they’re the ones who show a sudden interest in extreme politics, a religion you feel is positively cult-like, or the anti-vaxer’s movement. Manning says first and foremost, you need to remember that you're a) not going to convert your family to your way of thinking and b) the family party isn’t the time to try. “Robust debates are fine, but if you sense it’s turning nasty, head things off at the pass by announcing a kids’ performance, or by saying calmly, ‘Let’s agree to disagree – who’s for Monopoly?’ If you’ve got a situation where some family members are anti-vaxers and others have a newborn, you might need to speak to both and suggest separate gatherings,” she says. “It’s not ideal, but it’s not forever – and it may help preserve the peace.” 3. The Sarcastic One While sarcastic family members can be amusing, if you’re the target, their comments can feel downright mean sometimes. A sincere response can often throw a sarcastic person off their game, but there are other strategies too, says Manning. “You can try and let sarcasm flow over you without getting ruffled, but if you’re finding it hurtful, choose a quiet moment to say something like, ‘Those comments of yours upset me. Any chance you could try and phrase things a different way?’ That way, your family member will hopefully think twice before they speak. 4. The Negative One Negativity can manifest in a variety of ways – from being hypercritical to constantly blaming and complaining. Even if you don’t see the person a lot, their energy can be toxic and a downer when you do, says Manning. “How to cope? As much as possible I’d try and keep it light – for example: ‘Save that for the complaints department, grandpa, I believe they re-open in the new year’, pick a seat far away from cranky old Aunt Miriam, or take regular time outs. You're not going to change their nature, and you should try and preserve your own energy so you can still enjoy the family gathering rather than counting the minutes until it’s over!” 5. The Lazy One Seemingly guilt-free, with an amazing ability to avoid helping whatsoever, a lazybones will never be seen handing around food, cooking or even just bringing a bottle of wine to a gathering (perish the thought). Instead, they’ll turn up, take-take-take, and leave behind a butt-sized indentation in the couch. While infuriating, this is one of those times to practise acceptance and realise you just can’t change people, says Manning. “You could try getting them involved by giving them a direct request - e.g. ‘Can you please hand around this plate?’, but I wouldn’t waste too much time or energy hoping they’ll reform and become super helpful,’ she says. “That said, I wouldn’t pander to them either; if they're hungry you can let them sort themselves out!’ Written by Rachel Smith. Republished with permission of <a href="https://www.wyza.com.au/articles/lifestyle/relationships/5-tricky-family-members.aspx">Wyza.com.au.</a>

Caring

This tricky quiz will test you: Can you pick the correct spelling?

A new quiz that tests your spelling has left many adults stumped, with only 6 out of 100 college students acing every question. The creator of the test, which was posted to Playbuzz, says only players with an above-average IQ will be able to score full marks. So, just how good is your spelling? Take the 15-question test below to find out. <div class="playbuzz" data-id="3b752634-f477-44d5-8107-54590b4201e3" data-show-share="false" data-show-info="false"></div> How did you score? Let us know in the comments below.

Mind

Tricky quiz: Can you pick the odd one out?

A tricky general knowledge quiz promises to challenge even the brightest brains. The 15-question quiz asks you to pick the odd word out and although some are fairly easy to spot, others questions are much more challenging. Creator Cody Cross, who shared the quiz on <a href="https://www.playbuzz.com/codycross10/no-one-can-score-10-15-in-this-iq-test-and-its-driving-the-internet-wild#eightieth" target="_blank">Playbuzz</a>, claims it is so difficult that no one will be able to answer 10 correctly – let alone score full marks. Take the test yourself: <div class="playbuzz" data-id="d1c4cad7-d11d-4e83-b8eb-c7f61793da1e" data-show-info="false" data-comments="false" data-show-share="false"></div>

Mind

Can you answer this 4-year-old’s tricky homework question?

For most parents helping their 4-year-old with homework, they would not expect to be left scratching their heads. But a mother from Plymouth in the UK has taken to social media to ask for help when she was left stumped by her daughter’s worksheet. According to the <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5280313/Tricky-homework-question-leaves-parents-stumped.html" target="_blank">Daily Mail</a>, Annie Jordan shared a snap of the homework on Facebook, with the message, “Right please someone tell me what the last one is, because I literally don’t have a clue!” <img width="600" height="683" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/7267132/483c214a00000578-5280313-image-m-4_1516223912152_600x683.jpg" alt="483C214A00000578-5280313-image -m -4_1516223912152"/> The worksheet saw the children writing CVC words (consonant-vowel-consonant) on the right-hand side by looking at the image on the left side. Annie’s daughter had filled in words like pan, tap, hat, rat and hen – but it was the last one that she had sought help with. It appeared to be an ice rink set up for ice hockey, with a net at one end. Comments poured in with suggestions such as ‘ice’, ‘rink’, ‘net’ or ‘wet’ with some commenting that ‘ice’ didn’t have a vowel in the middle and ‘rink’ didn’t seem to fit with the rest of the answers (all three-letter words). <img width="599" height="276" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/7267131/483c2b3300000578-5280313-many_thought_the_correct_answer_was-m-14_1516227350360_599x276.jpg" alt="483C2B3300000578-5280313-Many _thought _the _correct _answer _was -m -14_1516227350360" style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"/> <img width="599" height="189" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/7267130/483c2b4300000578-5280313-image-a-6_1516224133424_599x189.jpg" alt="483C2B4300000578-5280313-image -a -6_1516224133424" style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"/> <img width="600" height="105" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/7267129/483c2b3800000578-5280313-image-a-8_1516224151139_600x105.jpg" alt="483C2B3800000578-5280313-image -a -8_1516224151139" style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"/> Annie later confirmed (in all capitals, just to be super clear) that, “TEACHER CONFIRMED IT IS RINK.” Thankfully someone else explained how this fits with the other answers by saying, “In phonics this would count as a CvC as three sounds r i nk.” Can’t we just go back to finger-painting please? Do you think this was too hard for a 4-year-old?

Mind

Can you solve this tricky maths riddle in one second?

A 13-year-old genius solved this tricky maths riddle in just one second. How long will it take you? The headscratcher comes from the Mathcounts National Mathematics competition in the United States, which is like a maths version of a national spelling bee. The 2017 competition was won by 13-year-old Luke Robitaille of Texas, who took less than a second to answer this riddle. Riddle: In a barn, 100 chicks sit peacefully in a circle. Suddenly, each chick randomly pecks the chick immediately to its left or its right. Each chick pecks only once, and is not affected by which way its neighbours peck. What is the most likely number of unpecked chicks? Mathematical genius <a href="https://www.adamspencer.com.au/" target="_blank">Adam Spencer</a>, whose new book The Number Games is out now, offers this hint. “Imagine you are one of the chickens in the circle. What are all the possible ‘peckings’ that could happen to you, including not getting pecked, and what are the odds of each of those ‘peckings’ happening? Run these odds out over the 100 chickens and what number of ‘no pecks’ do you get?” he tells news.com.au. Still haven’t got it yet? Here’s the answer, as explained by Spencer. Answer: For every chicken, the odds of getting pecked from the right is 0.5 and the odds of not getting pecked from the right is 0.5. Obviously the odds are the same for getting pecked from the left. So the odds of getting ‘double pecked’ are 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.25. The odds of getting ‘not pecked’ are also 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.25. The odds of getting ‘single pecked’ are 0.5 (0.25 from the left plus 0.25 from the right). Across 100 chickens you’d expect 25 to remain unpecked — you’d also expect 25 to be double pecked and 50 to be pecked once only.

Mind

Can you solve this tricky Halloween brainteaser?

Halloween is here so test yourself with this Halloween-themed brainteaser. Posted on <a href="http://afunzone.com/" target="_blank">A Fun Zone</a>, the maths-based riddle is a little tricky. “Halloween was almost over, and Mr Green had less than 20 sweets left. When the doorbell rang, he thought he would give all the sweets away. “When he opened the door, there were two trick-or-treaters. He wanted to give away the sweets evenly, but he noticed that when he divided the sweets in two, there was one left over. “At that point, he saw another trick or treater behind the first two. Again, he tried to divide the sweets evenly among the three of them, but again one was left over. “Finally, another trick or treater came to his door, making it four trick or treaters altogether. Mr. Green still had one sweet left over after dividing the left-over sweets into fours.” “So how many sweets did Mr. Green have left when the doorbell rang?” Have you figured it out? Scroll right on the gallery above to discover the answer.

Mind

How to choose the right indoor plant for tricky spots

Harking back to the indoor jungles of the 70s, today's homeowners are increasingly choosing to decorate their spaces with all manner of houseplants. If you don't have green fingers, the thought of introducing life into the trickier corners of your home can be intimidating. But with the right plant choice, it's possible to create a successful indoor arboretum. We spoke to the indoor plant experts to find the right plants for your home's needs. 1. I want to have plants in a room that doesn't get any sunlight. When it comes to having thriving - or surviving - indoor plants, light is an important consideration. But direct sunlight is not a requirement. "Most of the indoor house plants don't like the direct sunlight anyway, they want a well-lit room," says Daniel Kubler of Kings Plant Barn, St Lukes. When it comes to picking a plant for a "decently" lit room, there's plenty of options. Peace lilies, flamingo flowers and the taller ficus trees, such as fiddle leaf figs, are popular, Kubler says. Jess Hatton of California Home and Garden, Wellington, recommends the zanizar gem for darker rooms which might only get light through one window. It's a plant commonly found in shopping malls because of their ability to grow in dark spaces. The cast iron plant is another option, it's a "nice, glossy, dark plant that doesn't need sunlight". "Total neglect, really, and they'll be fine." 2. I'm terrible at remembering to water my plants. Green fingers are not a required for indoor plants, there's some you'd be hard-pressed to kill. Homeowners with a penchant for killing off their greenery should look first to air plants, such as the tillandsia and spanish moss, Hatton says. "With air plants you've pretty much got to mist them now and again and then you're fine." Cacti require minimal care, little water and thrive in direct sunlight. In darker rooms, look to the mother in law's tongue. "Water it maybe once every two months and it'll just keep going." Kubler again recommends the peace lily, because it droops when thirsty. "You'll notice when it needs a water, and that will jog your memory." 3. My home isn't consistent – it's hot in the day and freezing at night. When assessing the suitability of a room's climate for indoor plants, Kubler has a helpful rule of thumb. "If a person is comfortable enough to be inside the house, usually that would be okay for most indoor plants we sell in New Zealand. "You don't normally get a frost inside the house and if you do that's another problem entirely." Even so, plants with soft leaves, like ferns, can be more sensitive to changes in the environment, Hatton says. When looking for plants that will do well next to a window, or in a conservatory, "tougher leaves are a bit more resilient". Ficus plants, which prefer a lot of light, and rubber plants, which don't need much light, are both good options. 4. I want a plant for my bathroom, but it's so humid. While ferns might be ill-placed in rooms with a varied climate, they thrive in a humid bathroom. "Normally if you have a fern in any other room you'd want to mist it every other day, but in the bathroom with a hot shower that's pretty much doing it for you," Hatton says. "Another good one for bathrooms are the hanging pitcher plants ... they just love the humidity, assuming it's a decently lit bathroom," Kubler says. Hatton says the kitchen - humid but often warmer than the bathroom – is really good for orchids. 5. I don't have much space for a plant. When it comes to small plants for small spaces, you would be wrong to head straight for the nearest bonsai. "Most of them are conifers ... they need a bit of sunlight and a bit of wind, otherwise they curl up and die," Hatton says. African violets are a small plant, but not all that easy care. "They stay really tiny but it can be a bit complicated to find the right spot for them sometimes, they need bright indirect light and they need to be watered from below." If you're low on space but need some green, consider plants which hang from vertical spaces such as shelfs. String of pearls is an incredibly popular succulent which drapes down from a pot. 6. I want a plant for my balcony, but it's really exposed. Your options are "almost endless" once you step out onto the balcony or deck, Kubler says. "You can do anything that doesn't get too big for the pot." Hatton suggests herbs for small outdoor spaces. "Really good candidates are things like thyme and rosemary, which do fine in potted containers, and will take just about any weather conditions – and they're useful." First appeared on <a href="http://stuff.co.nz/%20%20">Stuff.co.nz.</a> Related links: <a href="http://www.oversixty.co.nz/lifestyle/home-garden/2017/02/mistakes-to-avoid-when-washing-sheets/">5 common mistakes to avoid when washing your sheets</a> <a href="http://www.oversixty.co.nz/lifestyle/home-garden/2017/02/budget-friendly-ways-to-update-the-bedroom/">5 budget-friendly ways to update the bedroom</a> <a href="http://www.oversixty.co.nz/lifestyle/home-garden/2017/02/home-habits-you-need-to-break-right-now/">20 home habits you need to break right now</a>

Home & Garden

How to correctly pronounce tricky foods

Wannabe foodies need never blush when ordering quinoa or inquiring after edamame, now a British food co-operative has collaborated with the guardians of the English language to produce a guide for commonly mispronounced foods. The Oxford English Dictionary's (OED) head of pronunciation Catherine Sangster told The Independent her team monitored how English speakers pronounced the name of a foreign food or drink that had become popular. "Some speakers will want to say the name in a completely authentic manner, matching the original language, and other speakers will be influenced by the spelling or prefer to anglicise the sounds," she said. "In the dictionary, we give pronunciations that are accurate and also reflect the reality of how the word is being spoken." The list devised by Co-operative Food and the OED: 1. Tzatziki - "tsat-si-key" 2. Bouillabaisse - "boo-yah-behss" 3. Ceviche - "seh-bee-tche" 4. Parmigiano Reggiano - "par-mee-djah-no rehd-djah-no" 5. Edamame - "ed-a-mar-mei" 6. Acai - "ah-sigh-ee" 7. Nicoise - "ni-swaz" 8. Chipotle - "chi-poat-lay" 9. Manchego - "man-chay-go" 10. Prosciutto - "pro-shoot-tow" 11. Crudites - "krew-dee-tay" 12. Gnocchi - "nyohk-kee" 13. Quinoa - "keen-wah" 14. Habanero - "habe-a-ne-reu" 15. Maraschino - "ma-ra-skeeno" 16. Bouillon - "bo-yon" 17. Rioja - "ree-o-ha" 18. Halloumi - "ha-lu-mi" 19. Anise - "an-is" 20. Guacamole - "gwah-kah-moh-leh" Related links: <a href="http://www.oversixty.co.nz/lifestyle/food-wine/2015/06/smooth-hummus/">Smooth hummus dip</a> <a href="http://www.oversixty.co.nz/lifestyle/food-wine/2015/05/crab-cakes/">Crab cakes with dill mayonnaise</a> <a href="http://www.oversixty.co.nz/lifestyle/food-wine/2015/04/crusted-fish-fillets/">Parsley and macadamia-crusted fish fillets</a>

News

Balancing act for funding your retirement is a tricky test

One of the most difficult - and important - calculations in finance is how much investment capital you will need for retirement. To be able to calculate the savings needed, people need to make some assumptions about the amount of income they can safely draw from their retirement capital. This means finding the retirement income Goldilocks spot, drawing neither too much nor too little. On the one hand, in retirement you want to have the best possible life, while on the other, you do not want the money to run out before you do. Like Goldilocks's porridge, chair and bed, the amount that you take and spend from your capital needs to be just right. There is a rule of thumb in finance which says that in retirement, you can draw 4 per cent of your savings to live on each year. The 4 per cent rule tells you that for every $100,000 you have saved, you can take $4000 in income each year for 30 years. Given its importance to retired people's finances, this 4 per cent rule has been much studied. Although it has been criticised by some, it is largely still considered by most to be a fairly useful tool for modelling what a retired investor can expect to be able to live on. It may be a bit rough and ready, but having a rule of thumb like that is very useful when planning your finances. There are several things that could make the 4 per cent rule either too optimistic or too pessimistic. Firstly, the 4 per cent drawdown rule is based on someone having a balanced portfolio (50 per cent of the portfolio in shares and property, with the other 50 per cent in bonds and cash). If you arrange the portfolio so that it is more conservative than this, your returns are likely to be lower, and so your drawings should be correspondingly lower. Such a conservative portfolio will have less volatility, but the money is more likely to run out before you do. Conversely, if you invest more aggressively, your money might last longer but the volatility risk will be higher. Secondly, the sequence of your returns may not be good. Returns from any portfolio will be volatile, but the timing of the volatility may be unfortunate. For example, if there is a major market fall shortly before or after retirement, it will be difficult to maintain the planned income drawdown. It is close to retirement when the portfolio is at its highest value, so a major market fall then will see the greatest loss of money. This is why it is often wise to start to lower your investment risk as you approach retirement. Thirdly, some people are uncomfortable watching their capital decline. Drawing 4 per cent will usually mean that not just investment returns are being spent, but the capital itself is being used to the extent that nothing is left after 30 years. If you want to maintain investment capital for inheritances, your drawdown rate will need to be less than 4 per cent. Planning this decumulation phase is as tricky as it is important - and, unlike Goldilocks, there is not much room for experimentation. Written by Martin Hawes. Appeared on <a href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/" target="_blank">Stuff.co.nz. </a> Related links: <a href="http://www.oversixty.co.nz/finance/money-banking/2015/11/using-frequent-flyer-miles/">5 ways to get more out of your frequent flyer miles</a> <a href="http://www.oversixty.co.nz/finance/money-banking/2015/11/make-money-online-in-retirement/">6 ways to make money online in retirement</a> <a href="http://www.oversixty.co.nz/finance/money-banking/2015/11/avoid-hidden-banking-fees/">How to avoid hidden bank fees</a>

Retirement Income

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Entertainment

Property

Information

Keep up to date

Search

9 tricky ways to clean your house while you sleep

Advice on dealing with tricky in-laws

The tricky notion of ‘value’ in the arts

Big-business greenwash or a climate saviour? Carbon offsets raise tricky moral questions

Your brain approaches tricky tasks in a surprisingly simple way

5 tricky family members and how to deal with them

This tricky quiz will test you: Can you pick the correct spelling?

Tricky quiz: Can you pick the odd one out?

Can you answer this 4-year-old’s tricky homework question?

Can you solve this tricky maths riddle in one second?

Can you solve this tricky Halloween brainteaser?

How to choose the right indoor plant for tricky spots

How to correctly pronounce tricky foods

Balancing act for funding your retirement is a tricky test