Youhave to eat. You have to sleep. You have to get yourself some kind of shelter. These are examples of a necessary and healthy selfishness. So why should you ditch the guilt and feel good about putting yourself first? Here are nine reasons why from psychologists, doctors, and self-help experts who agree that sometimes you should be selfish. Wecan also choose to use might have + past participle to mean the same thing: He might have got stuck in traffic. He might have forgotten that we were meeting today. He might have overslept. Should have + past participle 1: Should have + past participle can mean something that would have been a good idea, but that you didn't do it. It's like giving advice about the past when you say it to someone else, or regretting what you did or didn't do when you're talking about yourself. ShouldTransgender Students Be Allowed To Compete In Women's Athletics? Attorneys for three female high school athletes in Connecticut have filed a lawsuit in federal court to stop transgender CouldHave Should Have Would Have Exercise 1 Could have, should have, would have Exercise 1 Review how to use these past modal verbs here. Download this exercise in PDF here. Could have should have would have Make the correct past modal form (use could have / would have / should have + past participle) See all the modal verbs exercises here. Advertisersshould legally be required to carry warnings if images of models are digitally altered, MPs have said. It follows a report from the Health and Social Care Committee that identified a Could+ have is often shortened into "coulda" when speaking but not in writing. For example: "I coulda been a contender" is a famous line from On the Waterfront, a classic 1954 movie. Now, let's talk about grammar. "Could" is conditional. "Have + been" marks the past tense. As you may know, conditional grammar expresses an . Would Have, Could Have, Should Have, Must Have – Você muito provavelmente sabe elaborar frases com os verbos modais apresentados no título desse post. Caso você ainda esteja um pouco inseguroa, veja dois tópicos em que damos dicas sensacionais as quais você geralmente não aprende na escola Como usar should em Inglês 5 formas de usar should Como usar Would 5 formas para incrementar a fala Antes de você continuar lendo esse texto, sugerimos que você assista o nosso vídeo abaixo, pois pode ser muito mais esclarecedor. Depois de assisti-lo continue lendo o artigo. Dá o play! Enfim, voltando a ideia desse post, responda você sabe efetuar construções do tipo would have, could have, should have e must have? Para a construção de frases contendo uma das estruturas acima, devemos combinar um dos verbos modais modal verbs apresentados would, could, should, must com have e com o past participle do verbo que queremos usar. Por isso chamamos de past models em Inglês. Veja a sequência a ser adotada Verbo modal + have + past participle O past participle nada mais que é uma das possíveis formas de um verbo. Não se lembra muito bem o que são past participles? Nesse texto —-> clique aqui, você encontra uma lista imensa de past participles. Como usar would have, explicação e exemplos Usamos would have com o objetivo de nos referirmos a alguma oportunidade que perdemos, isto é, a ideia é muito boa, porém não a colocamos em prática no passado por algum motivo. Ex I would have studied more if I knew the test would be that hard. [eu teria estudado mais se soubesse que o teste seria tão difícil assim] Ex I would have killed you If I knew they wouldn’t pay for the rent. [eu teria te matado se eu soubesse que eles não pagariam o aluguel] Ex Thank you Jack. She wouldn’t have seen a doctor if it wasn’t for you. [Obrigado Jack. Ela não teria ido ao médio se não fosse por você] usar should have, explicação e exemplos Podemos usar a combinação should have para expressar algo que deveria ter sido feito no passado, ou seja, não foi feito e hoje além de reconhecemos isso, apontamos o que à época seria o correto. Por exemplo, imagine uma situação na qual um amigo perdeu o ônibus que saia às 2015 da rodoviária. Você quer dizer que ele deveria should ter chegado às 2000. Na língua inglesa, é muito comum usarmos o verbo to be com a palavra there formando be there com o sentido de estar em um local. É muito mais comum do que dizer “chegar”, como fazemos em Português. Na nossa língua é mais idiomático dizemos “você deveria chegar às 2015”, ao passo que, em Inglês, soa melhor optar por “você deveria estar lá às 2015”. Be there praticamente pode ser encarada como chunk em Inglês. Quer saber o que é chunk? Em breve vamos fala sobre chunks importantes em Inglês e se você quer ser avisado quando esse novo texto estiver disponível, curta a nossa página oficial no Facebook. Curtir página do Facebook Existe a possibilidade de usarmos a contraction form entre should e have formando should’ve Ex You should’ve told her about it. Ex Jack should’ve finished his report before Monday. uma música da cantora Taylor Swift chamada Should’ve Said No em que ela faz uso frequente da combinação should have aplicando a contraction form de should e have, ou seja should’ve. Mas o que significa should’ve said no? Significa, basicamente, deveria ter dito não. Veja alguns exemplos de como empregar should have Ex You should have been there at 8 pm. Ex They should have taken the kids school. Ex She should have done her homework. é um milhão de vezes mais habitual ouvirmos should’ve e não should have, apesar de, em hipótese alguma, isso significar que falar as palavras separadamente está errado. Da mesma forma podemos usar a expressão na negativa shouldn’t have Ex We shouldn’t have done that. Ex Jack and Michael shouldn’t have gone there. Ex She shouldn’t have gone home. Ex I should’ve known. língua inglesa, quando queremos lamentar o fato de estarmos desprovidos de uma determina informação no passado considerando que isso surtiu efeito no presente, podemos empregar o verbo to know que contém o sentido de estar ciente de algo. Por isso é muito comum dizemos I should have known . Como usar could have, exemplos e explicação Empregamos could have quando o propósito é levantar uma possibilidade do que poderia ter sido feito em face de circunstâncias no passado. Estamos no presente e analisamos o passado. Ou seja, apontamos uma alternativa de algo que poderia ter sido implementada. Ex You could have talked to your parents but you didn’t. [você poderia ter conversado com os seus pais, mas não conversou] Ex She could have been rapped if the cops didn’t show up on time. [ela poderia ter sido estuprada se os policiais não tivesse chegado a tempo] Ex There couldn’t have been a better way to solve this problem. [não poderia haver uma melhor forma de resolver esse problema] Ex You could have done well in your exam if you’d studied harder. usar must have – exemplos e explicação Podemos empregar a combinação must have + past participle quando a intenção é destacar que uma obrigação, tarefa ou solicitação não foi cumprida. Ex You must have cleaned the tables. [você tinha que ter limpado as mesas] Ex You must have talked to her. You boss demanded that. [você tinha que te conversado com ela. O seu chefe mandou] usar could have, should have, must have para especular, fazer suposições Além dos exemplos que apresentamos acima, também é possível usar essa mesma estrutura com verbos modais could, should, would, may, might, ought to etc em se tratando de especulações, isto é, fazemos suposições quanto a algo, já que não estamos 100% certos. Pelo contrário, muitas vezes não temos certeza nenhuma e realmente se trata de apenas de, como dito, uma mera suposição. Veja Ex It must have been very hard for her. [deve ter sido difícil para ela] Ex The passangers must have heard something. [os passageiros devem ter ouvido algo] Ex She couldn’t have managed without you. [ela não conseguiria sem você] Ex The costumers must have been extremely frightened by the spiders. [os clientes devem ter ficado extremamente assustados com as aranhas] Ex The prisoners must have escaped with someone’s help. [os prisoneiros devem ter fugido com a ajuda de alguém] sugerimos que você assista o vídeo do nosso blog em que explicamos de maneira super interessante como usar should. Dá play! Você também pode empregar outros verbos modais como might e ought to. Iremos escrever um novo texto contendo mais opções e exercícios para você praticar. Para ser avisado quando esse novo texto estiver disponível, curta a página oficial do blog Inglês no Teclado no Facebook. Essa é a melhor forma de você se manter ligado nas nossas dicas de Inglês! Curtir página do Facebook A few learner comments - Thanks! "EnglishClub made our classes so fun and informative" - Heloise, Maria Eduarda and Luciano, Brazil "The Magic site! Cleverly designed, stimulating, easily viewed. Thank you!" - Misha from Belgrade, Learner of English, Serbia "This site is AWESOME." - Jaycel Barona, Learner of English "I am grateful to Josef Essberger for the 7 Secrets. They are informative and sharp." - Andrey Kochanov, Learner of English, Russia "veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryvery good site!!!!!!" - Andrew, Learner, South Korea "I can no longer differentiate between learning and having fun." - Yarianto, Learner of English, Indonesia "Excellent because complete, very useful and well organized." - Michela Grammatico, Learner of English, Italy "Very helpful...very nice...free of charge!" - Ashraf Saber, Egypt There are an estimated 55 million women in menopause in the United States today, the majority of whom endure its most debilitating symptoms in silence. It doesn’t have to be so debilitating, and it wouldn’t be if we could end the silence and make even a handful of key policy has long been neglected by the mainstream medical establishment as well as by lawmakers, employers, even the media. All have failed to help women navigate this inevitable life stage. New data from the Mayo Clinic show that the burden extends far beyond the physical and physiological effects and also has huge economic consequences, with an estimated $ billion in lost earnings for menopausal women per was a bit of encouraging news last month The Food and Drug Administration approved a new non-hormonal oral drug to treat vasomotor symptoms of menopause — better known as hot flashes. As many as 80% of women experience hot flashes, with a disproportionate effect on Black women, for whom the symptoms of menopause last longer and are experienced more intensely. Among the profound short- and long-term health consequences of hot flashes are sleep disruption, mood disturbances, brain fog and increased risk for cardiovascular who suffer from hot flashes deserve innovation and investment in a wide array of options, such as this latest market entry, a pill to be sold under the trade name Veozah. We are heartened to see the FDA clear the path for new treatments. But this move also calls for an urgent caveat — and a broader call to is imperative that attempts to promote sales of Veozah do not pit it against or present it as a safer, superior option to estrogen and estrogen-progestin therapy, also known as menopause hormone therapy. A decades-old study misrepresented and overgeneralized the risks of hormone therapy, creating unfounded fears for an entire generation. Simply but emphatically stated Hormone therapy is not only the most effective treatment for hot flashes, but also the most cost-effective one. For symptomatic women who initiate hormone therapy before age 60 or within 10 years of their last period, the North American Menopause Society, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and many other national and international organizations agree that the benefits outweigh the therapy also has long-term health benefits. It prevents osteoporosis, decreases the risk of Type 2 diabetes, and treats the genitourinary syndrome of menopause, symptoms of which include painful sex, urinary urgency and frequent recurrent urinary tract infections. Other than treating hot flashes, additional benefits of Veozah, if any, and the long-term safety profile are is true that not everyone is a candidate for hormone therapy, including those with a personal history of breast or uterine cancer, a history of heart attack or stroke, or an increased risk for developing blood clots. But for millions in need of relief, hormones can and should be a first-line the overblown fears of hormone therapy requires an immediate course correction. We recommend three concrete reforms as a starting the National Institutes of Health must not only clarify current data and retract its prior warnings, but also design and begin a new modern initiative that can assess the long-term benefits of hormone therapy and accurately assess its risks. This is a move that can be directed and funded by Congress Last fall, for the first time, Congress stepped up and introduced the Menopause Research Act of 2022 to initiate this very process; an updated version of the bill will be introduced in the near the FDA must end its outdated requirement to label all estrogen products with a “black box warning.” That mandate is based on widely misinterpreted data in older populations who were using systemic estrogen. It would be reasonable to remove the warning from low-dose vaginal estrogen third, menopause treatments need to be accessible and affordable for everyone — meaning that all private and public health insurance programs must ensure coverage. This mandate applies especially to Veozah, which will cost a hefty $550 for a 30-day supply. Hormone therapy runs $30 to $90 per month.Menopause policy should be about equity — health, economic, age and gender — and enabling people to make truly informed decisions and live their best lives. It requires robust public discourse, thorough and transparent research, and a firm political commitment to prioritize women’s full and fair representation at all ages and life Weiss-Wolf is the executive director of NYU Law’s Birnbaum Women’s Leadership Network and the author of “Periods Gone Public Taking a Stand for Menstrual Equity.” Sharon Malone is the chief medical advisor of the telehealth company Alloy Women’s Health. “Should of” is grammatically incorrect in English. The correct phrase is “should have”.Why do people say “should of” if it is incorrect?When people say “should have” in English, it is often contracted to “should’ve”. This “ve” sound is very similar to “of”. For this reason, people think “should of” is the correct many English-speaking countries, English grammar is not a subject that people study in school so it is only to be expected that many people do not know this. I never studied English grammar in school and only studied English literature in English class. When to use should haveWe use should have when we talk about I am late, I should have left I am late, I should of left bus is taking ages! I should have taken the bus is taking ages! I should of taken the of/Have, Would of/Have“Could of” and “Would of” also don’t exist and are grammatically incorrect. The mistake is the same as above where the “ve” sound is could have been a could of been a would have gone out but I was would of gone out but I was use “could have” and “would have” to show alternative hypothetical situations in the past.“Could have” shows alternative possibilities“Would have” explains why alternative past situations took place. Shudda Wudda Cudda“Shudda” is a very informal version of “should have”. The reason people say “shudda” is because when people are speaking quickly and the “ve” contraction sounds like an “a”.This also happens with “would have” and “could have” and there have been a few hit songs with these PostsConor is the main writer here at One Minute English and was an English teacher for 10 years. He is interested in helping people with their English skills and learning about using tools at work. Eg. First one is The room should have cleaned. And the second one is The room should have been cleaned. What is the difference in terms of their meaning? Nathan Tuggy9,44320 gold badges39 silver badges56 bronze badges asked Dec 19, 2018 at 1654 6 Let's simplify this and remove the should have from both examples. The room cleaned ... The room was cleaned ... The second example is a passive voice construction - form of to be + past participle form of verb. This is fine. The first example is wrong because rooms don't normally clean anything. People clean rooms. If we don't know who cleaned the room, but know it didn't clean itself magically, that's a perfect case for passive voice and one of the reasons it's used. Passive voice works with modals like non-passively expressed verbs. The room is cleaned. The room must be cleaned. The room has been cleaned. The room would have been cleaned. answered Dec 19, 2018 at 1746 silver badges78 bronze badges Another use of the passive voice When people or an entity does not want to take responsibility for something Politicians and bosses will use the passive voice "Mistakes were made" vs "I made a mistake." or "We made a mistake." Here, the passive voice was a way to avoid saying... "The housekeeper should have cleaned the room" use "should have" in the active The room should have BEEN cleaned. add BEEN to the passive GOOD LUCK answered Dec 19, 2018 at 2326 You must log in to answer this question. Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged . Last year, the Biden administration set an ambitious new goal for the USA to deploy 30 gigawatts GW of offshore wind capacity by the year 2030, increasing US offshore capacity more than seven hundred times over. The UK already has 15 GW of offshore wind, more than 300 times as much as the USA and our experience should be a terrible warning to UK’s electricity prices are the highest since records began in 1920 and are now amongst the highest in all Europe. One reason for this is obvious slightly less than half our electricity comes from gas-burning Combined Cycle Gas Turbines CCGTs and gas now costs £90 per megawatt-hour MWh, nearly five times higher than normal. CCGTs are cheap to build around £650m per GW and operate. In normal times they would generate electricity at a total cost of £40 per MWh. That’s now risen to nearly £150/MWh, thanks to Vladimir Putin and his impact on the gas that’s not the whole story. The other reason why British electricity is so expensive is because we have so much wind power particularly, so much offshore wind power. Bad though the current situation is, we would be an even worse state if we had built even more offshore wind, as the British government plans an example, the offshore wind farms Hornsea Two and Moray East were completed in 2022 with capital costs of £ billion per GW and £ more than four times the cost of CCGT capacity. They’re expensive to maintain, which is not surprising since offshore windfarms have all their many generators mounted at the top of 200-metre tall masts far away from land. Estimates of maintenance costs are as high as £200m per GW installed, per annum. The nominal cost of offshore wind generation is £170/MWh – noticeably higher than that for CCGTs, even in these dire times of high gas other factor to bear in mind is that not only is wind capacity extremely expensive to build, wind farms do not deliver anything like their rated capacity over time. This is bad news for the customer, because the higher the capacity factor – that is, the higher the percentage of the rated capacity the powerplant actually delivers over time – the cheaper the energy. In 2022 the UK’s onshore and offshore windfarms operated with a capacity factor of 33 per cent. In 2021 it was only 29 per It gets worse. Like most other renewable generation technologies, wind power is unpredictably intermittent and highly variable. Also, since wind turbines are not synchronously connected to the grid, they provide no “grid inertia” – more on that shortly. Wind turbines cannot be asked to deliver energy when it is required, and their output changes rapidly. These failings must be mitigated and costed, and users have to pay for these costs on top of the price of the 2021 the UK annual grid balancing costs reached £ billion, £150 per household. For context, back in 1995 when we didn’t have much wind power the balancing cost for the grid was a mere £250 million per annum. A large, and growing, contribution to these costs is constraint management, as when a wind farm producing electricity which isn’t wanted – perhaps when it is windy in the middle of the night – is paid not to put that electricity into the problems and costs don’t stop there. Our transmission grid system was originally designed to link generation centres close to sources of fuel coal, gas and load centres such as cities. Now our generation sites are moving further away from load Our grid transmission system has to be expanded to connect the new renewable generators, which is bad enough when they are on a remote hilltop and worse still when they are out at sea. The National Grid estimates that on current plans this work will cost £46 billion – £1,533 per household – to there’s grid inertia. The British grid is termed an island grid, which means that we are solely responsible for controlling the grid frequency between tight limits so that things plugged into the grid will work as expected. Frequency control becomes easier as the inertia of the grid system increases. Grid system inertia is a key measure of how resilient the system is in response to transient changes. Inertia is the sum of the energy stored within the rotating mass of the machines generators and motors connected directly to the system. Low system inertia increases the risk of rapid system changes, which may then lead to disconnection of load or generation and then system instability. Apart from tree-burning biomass stations and hydro generation, renewables plants bring no inertia to the grid as the proportion of renewables rises, system inertia falls and the risk of major problems such as blackouts have attempted to reduce the issue of intermittency by expanding our connections to the European electricity grid – the hope being that the wind will be blowing somewhere else even if it is not blowing here – but we’re still exposed to periods when wind generation across the whole of Europe falls near to nothing. And these connections do not help with inertia and stability either because few of the connections to the continent are synchronous In 1995 the problem of grid frequency stability required provision of rapidly responding generators capable of changing their combined output at a rate of GW per second in order to deal with fluctuations. With the arrival of so much unpredictable wind power, that figure has now increased almost tenfold to GW per second!Extra services like very rapid response gas generators, required in order to make it possible to connect renewables to the grid, add between £30/MWh and £50/MWh to renewables’ cost. Thus the true cost to the customer of offshore wind generators is actually between £200/MWh and £220/MWh, much more than CCGTs even in these times of ruinously high gas out CCGT production will therefore increase domestic electricity prices it seems that CCGTs will be phased out much sooner than planned. The government has proposed an expansion to 60 GW of offshore wind by 2030 capital expenditure £122 billion and solar to 70 GW by 2035 capital expenditure to 2030 £30 billion.This is extremely unwise we still have no way of storing electricity at scale and the planned transitions of home heating and transport to electrical power are progressing weakly and may yet stall completely. Creating such a large solar generation fleet raises the nightmare scenario of early summer mornings, with little demand and the vast majority of generation being solar with zero inertia massive grid collapses would be all but a certainty. Vast amounts of energy will be generated only to be expensively constrained off and probably wasted, and the scenario of unmet demand – with attendant blackouts – will become UK grid is simply not able to cope with the proposed amounts of we simply cannot afford all this. If we add the costs of an even more extended National Grid, this programme of wind and solar generation expansion will cost £232 billion – more than £8,000 per household this decade – all to be paid for by the suffering energy user. It should be emphasised that these figures do not include the costs of the huge energy storage industry which will also be necessary, whatever that may turn out to be hydrogen or ammonia or something even more dangerous and expensive. Heat pumps and switching to electric vehicles could lift total costs above £1 Americans should look at the British renewables disaster and give thanks that today they have hardly any offshore wind. And they might, looking at the UK, recoil with horror from the plans of the Biden administration especially as most US offshore wind will need to be floating offshore wind rather than built on the seabed, and so even more either nation would like to reduce carbon emissions and/or reduce its dependence on fossil fuels supplied by unsavoury overseas regimes, an immediate measure would be to build new, modern, high efficiency CCGT plant which would immediately cut the need for gas and reduce emissions without requiring vast, expensive alterations to the grid and special measures so that they don’t cause it to collapse. We should also begin building new nuclear plant with some genuine urgency, as that is the only genuine, affordable, practical way to seriously cut emissions and achieve secure energy Capell Aris PhD has spent his career in the electricity generation sector. He is a former Fellow of the Institute of Engineering and Technology

should should be should have