阜阳那个中医院看皮肤好(阜阳美容医院痘印多少钱) (今日更新中)

The jarring noises and machines inside the Usheco plastics warehouse sound like home to the Schaeffer family.“My grandfather, Bernarr Schaeffer, started the business in ’61. So, proud to be third generation,” said Alethea Shuman, who will one day take over the company for her father.The company started with the World War II fighter pilot, and now, more than 60 years later, nearly every member of his family has worked inside these four walls.“It’s like having your own team. There’s an extra level of trust that you just don’t get elsewhere,” said Wayne Schaeffer, Bernarr’s son and the President of Usheco.They build all kinds of plastic devices. The company is known for air purifying planters, handicapped equipment, and laboratory supplies.“Our business was really founded on my grandfather wanting to make health-related products,” said Shuman. Now, this family is seeing a huge boom in some new products.At the start of the pandemic when everything shut down, Usheco had to lay off much of their staff because business dropped by about 40 percent. However, they designed face shields and desk barriers and had to bring everyone back on and hire extra workers on just to fulfill all their orders.“We only cut everyone’s hours for one week," said Shuman. "The following week, we were back to full-time hours for everyone."Hundreds of thousands of face shields and plastic desk barriers in custom shapes and sizes are coming out of this factory.While most businesses are in need of help themselves, the plastics industry is one of few seeing pandemic profits.“Things are looking pretty good for us,” said Schaeffer. “How can you not be thrilled to be helping out and making your business grow?”The Schaeffers say their U.S. made products are growing to a global scale. “Our pricing is similar to China now,” said Wayne.“We’re seeing new quotes coming in for things that are typically done overseas and were grateful to be able to help with that,” said Shuman.Shuman said by the time she takes over the business, she hopes the products keeping her grandfather’s legacy alive are no longer in stock.“I’m hoping we figure out a way to get past this and we’re not going to need PPE and sneeze guards, and the business coming back to the U.S. is going to support us. And from what I can see, that’s happening,” she said.But more important than business, is carrying on a tradition.“Over the last few months, we really have understood where our roots are and where we’re going,” she said.Towards a future where simple, plastic products mean more than ever before. 2571

The polling industry has a lot on the line heading into Tuesday's midterm election.Critics blamed pollsters when voters were caught off guard by Donald Trump's election in 2016. Old cries of "don't believe the polls" became fevered shouts. And the president has encouraged distrust by calling certain polls "fake" and claiming they are used to "suppress" the vote.Although there is no evidence to suggest that is true, there is persistent and widespread suspicion about polling, according to, you guessed it, a McClatchy-Marist poll. And it exists on both sides, albeit in different forms."I think Democrats may have felt let down by the polls but don't think it was an intentional error. I think many Republicans believe the polling errors of 2016 were intentional," GOP pollster and co-founder of Echelon Insights Kristen Soltis Anderson told CNN.So can the industry regain trust?Since 2016 there's been a whole lot of self-reflection in the polling world. Pollsters have tweaked their techniques; pundits have become more cautious when talking about polls; and news outlets have conducted some fascinating experiments.On Tuesday, all the efforts are being put to the test."Some pollsters would disagree with this, but the way that the public generally views whether or not polling is accurate is whether or not it gets the results of the election right," CNN analyst Harry Enten said on "Reliable Sources.""I'm not necessarily sure that's fair," Enten said, "but I do think that there is more pressure on pollsters this year to get it right given the president's rhetoric and given what happened in 2016."Many, though not all, 2016 polls underestimated support for Trump. This effect was particularly pronounced at the state level, where there were embarrassing "misses," showing Hillary Clinton with safe leads in states Trump actually carried.Most national polls accurately showed Clinton winning the popular vote. But reporters and commentators made lots of mistakes in their interpretations of the polls. Readers and viewers did, too. Many people discounted the margin and other factors and made faulty assumptions that Trump would lose to Clinton.There were other problems, too. Predictive features on websites gained lots of traffic before the election but caused lots of consternation afterward. HuffPost's model infamously showed Clinton with a 98 percent chance of winning. "We blew it," the site admitted afterward.But just as importantly, HuffPost's Natalie Jackson tried to explain why.Other news outlets have also tried to be more transparent and remind voters of what polls cannot convey.In special elections since 2016, Democrats have repeatedly outperformed polls of their races.The top example was the Virginia governors' race. "Ralph Northam was favored by three points. He ended up winning by nine," Enten said.But past outcomes are not an indicator of future results."I think many pollsters and forecasters have tried to be much more intentional about explaining uncertainty and being humble about what data can and can't tell us," Anderson said. "Because I think there was a big sense that in 2016, there was more certainty conveyed than may have been justified by the available data."So political pros and reporters are communicating poll results differently this time. Time magazine's Molly Ball, who has a no-predictions rule for herself, said that even people who do make predictions are adding more caveats: There's "less of the, 'Well, the needle shows this' and more of, 'Here's what it doesn't show, here's what we should always remember can happen about probabilities.'"Early voting has been explosive in the midterms, indicating above-average enthusiasm among both Democrats and Republicans. Pollsters have to make assumptions about turnout when contacting "likely voters," and this is a difficult election to forecast.The 2018 electorate is "a universe that doesn't exist yet," Democratic pollster Margie Omero said. "I mean, people don't know whether they're going to vote, some people."They may tell a pollster that they're sure to vote, but never make it to the ballot box. Or they might change who they're voting for.Conversely, certain subsets of voters may have a big impact on the final results without really showing up in the pre-election polling. If pollsters assume relatively low youth turnout, but lots of young people vote for the first time, that could cause big surprises in certain races.The vast majority of people who are called by pollsters decline to participate, so the researchers have to make a huge number of phone calls, bend over backwards to reach a representative sample of people, and weight their results accordingly.Some polls are higher quality than others. Most news outlets tend to favor live interviewers, as opposed to computerized systems, and a mix of landline and cell phone calls. But some outlets are wading into web-based polling. CNN's polling standards preclude reporting on web polls.This fall The New York Times pulled back the curtain by conducting "live polling" and publishing the results in real time, call by call. Working with Siena College, the surveyors made 2,822,889 calls and completed 96 polls of House and Senate races."We wanted to demystify polling for people," said Nate Cohn of The Times' Upshot blog."From our point of view, it's almost a miracle how accurate polls usually are, given all the challenges," Cohn said in an interview with CNN.He emphasized that polls are "very fuzzy things." And the real-time polling showed this to the public. The researchers sought to interview about 500 people for each race that was examined.In Iowa's fourth congressional district, for example, 14,636 calls resulted in 423 interviews.The results showed the incumbent, far-right congressman Steve King, with 47% support, and his Democratic challenger J.D. Scholten with 42%.The Times characterized this as a "slight edge" for King, with lots of room for error. "The margin of sampling error on the overall lead is 10 points, roughly twice as large as the margin for a single candidate's vote share," the Times explained on its website.Cohn's final pre-election story noted that "even modest late shifts among undecided voters or a slightly unexpected turnout could significantly affect results."That's the kind of language that lots of polling experts are incorporating into their stories and live shots, especially in the wake of the 2016 election."With polling, you never actually get to the truth," Cohn said. "You inch towards it, and you think you end up within plus or minus 5 points of it at the end."As Enten put it, "polls are tools," not meant to be perfect. But that message needs to be reinforced through the news media. 6753

The man police believe was behind a series of bombings that terrified Austin, Texas, for 19 days is dead, police said.Authorities have called the suspect a "serial bomber" who was skilled and capable of making sophisticated devices.Here's what we know about the man accused of the deadly explosions: 307

The plane behind Lion Air's crash off Indonesia was one of Boeing's newest and most advanced jets. It was just two months old and with 800 hours under its belt, so experts are baffled as to what exactly caused the 737 MAX 8 to crash.While no information has been released yet as to why the brand-new plane crashed into the sea 13 minutes after takeoff,?FlightRadar24 has published data that shows the plane behaving erratically during takeoff. When a plane would normally be ascending in the first few minutes of flight, the Lion Air jet experienced a 726-foot drop over 21 seconds.Aviation expert Philip Butterworth-Hayes told CNN that the data was unusual -- especially since takeoffs like this are typically controlled by the plane's automatic systems."This doesn't fit an automatic flight profile," Butterworth-Hayes said while studying the data. "Unless, the aircraft was trying to correct itself at the time for a number of reasons.""This shows an unusually unstable vertical flight profile," he added."Exactly at the same time as the speed increased there was an altitude dip, which meant that at that point there was quite some loss of control."The plane, which has only been in operation since August 15, was carrying 181 passengers as well as six cabin crew members and two pilots, bound for Pangkal Pinang on the Indonesian island of Bangka.Former US National Transportation Safety Board air crash investigator and CNN aviation analyst Peter Goelz told CNN the data clearly showed issues with both the speed and altitude of the plane."There is something obviously wrong in both the air speed and the altitude which would point to the flight control systems," he said. "These are fly-by-wire systems -- highly automated -- and pilots may not be able to troubleshoot failures in a timely manner." 1818

The Pennsylvania Academy of the Arts, or PAFA, is the nation’s oldest art school and museum but it’s facing a new dilemma: what to do with an artist’s work when the artist is accused of sexual misconduct.                                                                                                                                                                       The artist in question is portraitist Chuck Close. He may not be a household name to you and I, but in the art community he’s huge. He’s considered a pioneer of portrait work who rose to prominence in the 1960s who made a name for himself in the way he incorporated photography within the world of painting.But this past December, four female models accused the artist of sexual harassment, claims the Close denied in an interview with the New York Times. Close, through a rep, declined our request comment.Brooke Davis Anderson, PAFA’s museum director, had a tough call to make: what to do with a high-profile exhibit, on view in one of their most prominent galleries, filled with Close’s work.“I’m very hesitant to censor artwork,” Anderson said. She and the museum executive leadership convened their art community of students, staff, and patrons to gauge the reactions to try to fiigure out ho to handle the exhibit.“We really asked everybody what they were feeling, thinking, how they were responding,” Anderson said. “How they felt we should respond as an institution, and collectively what this meant for us.”The broader discussion is not all that new. You may recall that a few years back, “The Cosby Show” was pulled from syndication following allegations made by a slew of women against its star and creator Bill Cosby. It’s since made a slow re-emergence on small cable networks.In the past year, we’ve had to ask ourselves whether we as a society are comfortable enjoying re-runs of “Louie” on FX in the wake of comedian Louis C.K.’s admitted mistreatment of women. Or what about previous seasons of “House of Cards” now that allegations regarding Kevin Spacey have come to light?Even Pablo Picasso was known to have mistreated the opposite sex.The obvious question becomes: can an artist’s work be separated completely form the artist and their personal decisions?[,We asked Melissa Joseph and Candace Jensen, both students at PAFA who took part in the museum’s forum on what to do with the Close exhibit. “That’s like the zinger question!” Jensen said, through laughter.“Many students did want the [Chuck Close] show to come down,” Joseph added. “You just want it to go away, you know? You don’t want to have to look at it anymore.”But, she says, over a few weeks’ time her views evolved.“If you think about what’s going to be most productive for this movement, what’s going to actually move things forward, your initial emotional reaction isn’t always the right one.”Jensen interjected.“Well yeah but don’t diminish emotional responses. Emotional responses are really tied up with moral responses,” Jensen said, adding that understanding the context in which art was made is key.“Being willing to value the aesthetic decisions that were made and also be critical of the maker,” Jensen said. “So it’s not a black and white.”PAFA is not the only institution having to navigate this gray area.Seattle University recently removed a Chuck Close self-portrait hanging in a campus library.The National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC indefinitely postponed its Chuck Close exhibit that was set to open in May. A museum spokesperson declined an interview but told us in an email that “all parties involved” agreed that it was “not the appropriate time” to present the installation. Anderson made the final call for PAFA: keep the Close exhibit, but with a caveat in the adjoining gallery right next door.“The site of an exhibition isn’t where you respond by censorship or changing the project. I rather felt that what we could do because of our real estate here. We had an opportunity to have a dialogue with another project.”That other project is what they’re calling a “response exhibit,” a gallery created to force a conversation that explores gender and equality in the art community.“There are no longer town halls and town squares,” Anderson said. “So what if a museum was a site where we could say we don’t agree, and lets unpack how we don’t agree. And let’s understand how we don’t agree, and maybe that advances us a little bit.”Anderson pointed out some of the highlights of the responsive exhibit, including a timeline regarding how and when the art world can become “an equitable space.”“How do we get more women in leadership positions? Women artists and collections, people of color, trans people, how do we create that balance?” 5181

来源：资阳报