James' World 2

Click the link below the picture

.

Being struck by lightning is something humans generally try to avoid. But for at least one tropical tree species, this doesn’t hurt—and might even be a good thing.

Scientists have long believed that being hit by lightning could have only negative effects on trees. “Your best-case scenario is that you’re kind of okay, and your worst-case scenario is: you explode in a million bits,” says Evan Gora, a forest ecologist at the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies in New York State. But after spending many years studying the effects of lightning on rainforests, Gora began wondering whether trees could not only survive this usually deadly event but also actually get some kind of advantage from it.

To find out, he and his colleagues spent several years following the fate of 93 trees from various species in the rainforest of central Panama when they were directly struck by lightning. Nine were from a species known as the almendro (Dipteryx oleifera), a forest giant native to Central and South America that can grow up to 165 feet tall. After the trees were struck, the researchers continued to monitor the ones that survived the shock, checking their overall condition and noting whether the lightning killed neighboring trees and any parasitic vines growing on them.

The results showed that the almendro trees were very resistant to lightning and minimally damaged compared with almost all the other tree species, which were severely damaged—64 percent of the latter trees died within two years of being struck. A few other large species also survived the strikes and might have benefitted as well, but lightning had not struck enough of these species for the researchers to be certain.

Many of the trees that had surrounded the almendros—competing with the species for water and nutrients—were killed by lightning that spread through their branches after it hit the D. oleifera trees. This left more resources and space for the latter. Lightning strikes on the almendros also reduced the average number of parasitic vines on a tree by 78 percent, by killing them. These vines climb on top of the trees to “steal” light.

Equipped with data on lightning strike frequency and the trees’ survival rates after reaching a certain size, the team used computers models to estimate that a typical almendro is likely struck by lightning about five times during its 300-year lifespan. Then, by running simulations using data on details such as how the trees grow and reproduce, the researchers showed that lightning strikes seem to be almost a necessity for the trees. Without the benefits the strikes bring, “they would not live as long,” Gora says.

The researchers also speculate that the almendro might have evolved to attract lightning—or at least not to avoid it, as most other trees have. D. oleifera’s wide crown and tall height, which enhance its chance of being hit, make it a living lightning rod. And it might resist damage by being more electrically conductive than other tree species around it. Gora thinks similar abilities to benefit from lightning might be widespread across other species and types of forests.

Allan Carroll, a disturbance ecologist at the University of British Columbia, who wasn’t involved in the research, says, “The findings of the study are quite novel and make a significant contribution to our knowledge of plant evolution.”

.ByronOrtizA/Getty Images

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

One of the most surprising things to me about interviewing people for jobs has always been how frequently candidates profess not to have any questions for me when prompted. After all, this is a job they’re considering spending a large chunk of their waking hours at for the next however many years, and it’s likely to have a significant impact on their day-to-day quality of life and progression in their career. Surely there’s something they’d like to know about.

Undoubtedly, part of the reason people tell their interviewers they don’t have questions is that they’re unsure of how to ask about the things they really want to know, like “Are you a nightmare of a boss?” or “Am I going to get work calls at 9 p.m., or be expected to work all weekend?” or “Is everyone here miserable?” They also worry that interviewers will read negative subtext into perfectly reasonable questions, for example, looking like a slacker if they ask about what sort of hours people work, or not appearing sufficiently interested in the position they’re interviewing for if they ask about advancement potential. But when you don’t take advantage of the opportunity to ask your interviewer questions, you risk coming across like you’re not that interested in the job or not thinking critically about whether it’s one you’ll do well in.

It’s true that some of the information you want to know is best sought outside of a formal interview (more on how to do that here), but you can still learn a lot by asking your interviewer the right questions. Here are ten strong questions that will get you useful insights into whether the job is right for you.

Questions About the Position

1.

“How will you measure the success of the person in this position?”

This gets right to the crux of what you need to know about the job: What does it mean to do well, and what will you need to achieve in order for the manager to be happy with your performance?

You may think you already understand this from the job posting, but it’s not uncommon for employers to post the same job description year after year, even if the job has changed significantly during that time. Companies often post job descriptions that primarily use boilerplate language from HR, while the actual manager has very different ideas about what’s most important in the role. Also, frankly, most employers just suck at writing job descriptions (which is why some are written by AI and so many more sound like they

were), so it’s useful to have a conversation about what the role is really about. You may find out that while the job posting listed 12 different responsibilities, your success in fact hinges on just two of them, or that the posting dramatically understated the importance of one of them, or that the needs of the role are expected to change significantly in the next year, or that the hiring manager is battling with her own boss about expectations for the role, or even that the manager has no idea what success would look like in the job (which would be a sign to proceed with extreme caution).

2.

“What are some of the challenges you expect the person in this position to face?”

Job descriptions usually just lay out a list of activities and responsibilities. But it’s also important to know what it really looks like to operate on this particular team and in this particular culture. Maybe you’ll find out that the role’s most important client is notoriously hard to please, or there’s been a sticky political history with partner organizations that will complicate the work you’d be taking over. You might find out there’s tons of organizational support for the role, or that it’s a battle to keep the position’s work funded. Things like that often aren’t listed in written job descriptions but can have a profound impact on what it’s like to be in the job and how happy you’re likely to be if you take it.

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

CLIMATEWIRE | Drastic cuts to federal science programs are draining millions of dollars in research funding from universities in Republican-dominated states, testing the support of conservative lawmakers for President Donald Trump’s chaotic reshaping of the U.S. government.

The administration’s downsizing effort — led by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency — has resulted in thousands of federal employees being fired and the cancellation of billions of dollars in grants at agencies that support research on climate science, public health and other fields.

Those actions — some of which have been reversed by court orders — have sent shock waves through the nation’s scientific research system and led universities in more than a dozen states to limit the number of new students or staff they’ll take on, citing uncertainty about federal funding.

The science-slashing blitz threatens to upend the nation’s research and development pipeline and diminish the flow of innovation that has bolstered local economies and protected communities from the effects of climate change, according to former federal research chiefs.

Republicans lawmakers, who control both chambers of Congress, have largely supported the administration’s science funding cuts, even as they threaten local institutions and the communities that depend on them. But some GOP senators in states with large research universities are beginning to express concern about Trump’s cuts.

“We just want to make sure the money is being deployed as productively as possible,” Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina told POLITICO’s E&E News.

His state has seen a 25 percent cut in graduate school admissions at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and a hiring freeze at North Carolina State University. Similar cost-cutting measures are expected at Duke University.

Universities and the communities they support are reeling as Trump and Musk move to cancel funding for scientific projects focused on climate change, diversity, or other topics they have derided as wasteful and “woke.” The administration is also trying to shut down scientific programs at EPA, NASA, and other agencies that work to advance the nation’s understanding of climate change.

While Washington currently spends around $142 billion more per year on research and development than Beijing, the Chinese Communist Party was already narrowing the gap before Trump’s moves began reverberating through the American scientific system.

“U.S. leadership is clearly being compromised by the Trump administration on the false prophecy of saving money,” said Craig McLean, who served as research director at NOAA during Trump’s first term and sparred with the White House over the president’s erroneous hurricane claims. “This will cost the United States money and opportunity, and endanger people’s lives and property.”

.

sanjeri/Getty Images

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

Caroline Fleck, PhD, is a licensed psychologist, corporate consultant, and adjunct clinical instructor at Stanford University. She received a BA in psychology and English from the University of Michigan and an MA and PhD from the Department of Psychology and Neuroscience at Duke. Fleck has served as a supervisor and consultant for some of the most rigorous clinical training programs in the country, and has been featured in national media outlets, including the The New York Times, Good Morning America, and HuffPost. In her private practice, Fleck specializes in dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and other cognitive behavioral treatments for mood, anxiety, and personality disorders. Fleck’s corporate work focuses on strengthening company cultures and individual performance. She implements custom training programs for Fortune 500 companies and provides executive coaching to industry leaders worldwide.

What’s the big idea?

The secret to influencing others isn’t about persuasion—it’s about validation. In Validation: How the Skill Set That Revolutionized Psychology Will Transform Your Relationships, Increase Your Influence, and Change Your Life, Fleck reveals how acknowledging and accepting others’ experiences can strengthen relationships, defuse conflicts, and even increase self-compassion. Through captivating stories and actionable techniques, she introduces eight powerful skills to harness validation’s transformative impact. Validation uncovers how truly seeing and being seen is the key to lasting change.

Below, Fleck shares five key insights from her new book. Listen to the audio version—read by Fleck herself—in the Next Big Idea App.

1. Validation is not what you think it is.

My technical definition of validation is that it communicates mindfulness, understanding, and empathy in ways that convey acceptance. If I were to translate that into a mantra, it would be, “Validation shows that you’re there, you get it, and you care.”

• Validation is not praise: Praise is a judgment. It says, “I like the way you look or perform.” Validation demonstrates acceptance. It says, “I accept who you are, independent of how you look or perform.” When people claim that we shouldn’t rely on “external validation,” they are confusing validation with praise.
• Validation is not problem-solving: Problem-solving focuses on changing someone’s reaction by suggesting solutions to their, e.g., “I know you didn’t do well on that spelling test; why don’t we try reviewing your words on the way to school next time?” Validation, on the other hand, focuses on acknowledging the situation and the validity of someone’s response to it: “You studied so hard; I can understand why you are upset.”
• Validation is not agreement: I can validate why someone would have concerns about protecting an unborn fetus, even if I am pro-choice. If the idea of validating an opinion you disagree with makes you nervous, rest assured that validating another person’s perspective does not necessarily function to reinforce it. On the contrary, people tend to get entrenched in their views when they feel like they have to defend their own position or attack yours. A validating response from you leaves nothing to attack, much less anything to defend against.

So again, validation shows that you’re there, you get it, and you care. It is not praise, problem-solving, or agreement.

2. Validation is like MDMA for your relationships.

Validation improves relationships by transforming how they feel, increasing trust, intimacy, and psychological safety. Research has consistently shown validation to be among the strongest predictors of relational outcomes, ranging from commitment to quality across various types of relationships. This is really important given the effect relationships have on our health and life expectancy. Having poor social relationships is associated with the same death rate as smoking 15 cigarettes a day. Data show that the quality of a person’s relationships can increase their probability of surviving by 50%.

Importantly, validation is critical to all our relationships, including the one we have with ourselves. Knowing how to validate your own emotions is essential to developing self-compassion and improving how you relate to yourself. I have many more tips on how to cultivate self-validation in the book.

.

[Source Photo: Freepik]

.

.

Click the link below for the complete article:

.

__________________________________________