Amid the video podcast boom, Netflix is making its own move into the space.
According to Business Insider, the streaming giants co-CEO Ted Sarandos said video podcasts may be the next format to land on the platform. During Netflixs first-quarter earnings call Thursday, Sarandos noted that “the lines are getting blurry” between podcasts and talk shows, adding, “as the popularity of video podcasts grows, I suspect you’ll see some of them find their way to Netflix.”
In 2025, audiences want to watch their podcasts. As a result, YouTubenot audio-first platforms like Spotify or Applehas become the top destination for American podcast listeners. Data from Edison Podcast Metrics shows YouTube attracts 31% of weekly podcast listeners, compared to Spotifys 27% and Apples 15%. Nearly half of podcast listeners now watch their favorite shows on Smart TVs, and in March, YouTube made up 9.7% of all TV viewingedging out Netflixs 8.1%.
When asked about competition from YouTube, Sarandos told The Hollywood Reporter that Netflix remains the best place for premium content, as defined by fans. The platform already licenses content from kids favorite Ms. Rachel, as well as Tony Hinchcliffe, the conservative comedian behind the podcast Kill Tony.
And Netflix is far from done. “We’re looking for the next generation of great creators, and we’re looking everywhere, not just in film schools and certainly not just in Hollywood,” Sarandos said during the call.
When it comes to helping creators scale and monetize, Sarandos says Netflix stands apart. You know, the question thats out there is, is it premium? Well, some of it is, and we believe we have the best monetization model on the planet for premium storytelling, he said. I think we could help those creators reach an audience. Our model can also support more ambitious efforts for them, could help derisk them, unlike the kind of typical [user generated content] models.
With Netflix becoming YouTube, Instagram turning into TikTok, and X becoming whatever X is now, no one wants to stay in their lane anymore.
Exhaustion. Mental fatigue. Difficulty concentrating. Irritability. Dreading your next calendar appointment.
Nobody likes showing up to work with a hangover. But these days, you dont need a long night of drinking to feel the effects.
Instead, you might be suffering from a meeting hangoverthe lingering exhaustion, disengagement, and productivity drain that follow an unproductive meeting.
Studies show that 28% of workplace meetings leave employees feeling drained, with more than 90% of workers experiencing meeting hangovers at least occasionally. Nearly half (47%) report feeling less engaged with their work afterward, while more than half say these hangovers disrupt their workflow and productivity.
Meetings are a double-edged sword. Despite their pitfalls, they remain the most common form of workplace communication. In fact, research suggests face-to-face meetings are more effective for idea generation and task absorption than video calls. In other words, meetings arent going anywhere.
But leaders can take chargeensuring meetings are productive, efficient, and, most importantly, not hangover-inducing. Here are the strategies I use as CEO of Jotform.
Set a concise agenda
If youve ever walked into a grocery store for a few essentials and walked out with a cart full of snacks, you understand the power of having a clear list. The same principle applies to meetings.
At Jotform, meeting agendas are indispensable. We also believe in minimizing meetings. By preparing an agenda, you can determine if a meeting is really necessary.
If an asynchronous methodlike an email, Slack message, or shared documentcan achieve the same outcome faster, we opt for that instead. But when a real-time discussion is necessary, such as brainstorming solutions to an ongoing issue, a meeting is the right call.
An agenda also ensures that only the necessary people are in the room. If someone isnt essential to the conversation, they can contribute asynchronouslyperhaps by answering follow-up questions afterward.
As a result, we have fewer, more efficient meetings and fewer meeting hangovers.
Keep the conversation on track
The Big Apple Circus in New York once featured a team of Chinese jugglers who could each spin eight plates at a time on the ends of long, slender sticks. Interviewing is a similar balancing act, writes professor and journalist Helen Benedict.
The same is true for leading a meeting. Youre listening, observing, processing, and asking questionsall while ensuring the discussion stays focused.
Benedicts strategy for interviews is to arrive with a list of questions and stick to them religiouslyeven if it means cutting off tangents and redirecting the conversation. It may not be smooth conversational technique, she writes, but it can save me hours of listening to off-the-track waffling.
Running a meeting requires the same discipline. If a discussion starts veering off course, our meeting leaders are tasked with gently steering it back. If were stuck on a point with no resolution, we note it and ask participants to revisit it later rather than letting it derail the agenda.
This helps us conclude meetings on timeand sometimes early. If an hour-long meeting ends up taking 45 minutes, theres no need to fill the space with white noise.
Recap with clear deliverables
Finally, we never leave a meeting without a clear recap of whos responsible for what.
Outlining deliverables ensures that nothing falls through the crackstasks dont get lost, and responsibilities dont blur or overlap. This is where Ive found AI agents make a huge difference.
Combined with AI-powered note-taking apps, agents can generate concise summaries, highlight key takeaways tailored to each participants role, and compile a clear action-item list. This accountability creates a sense of shared leadership and boosts team effectiveness.
An AI agent can also streamline follow-ups by creating a separate document with action items and deadlines, time-stamping key moments so participants can revisit discussions without replaying the entire meeting, and even drafting follow-up emailsleaving nothing more to do than review and hit send.
With these tasks automated, meeting participants can stay focused on the actual substance of the meeting rather than getting bogged down in administrative details. This also cuts down the total time spent on meetings.
Despite technological advancements, the time that workers spend in unproductive meetings has doubled since 2019to five hours per week. With automation and the above strategies, employees can spend less time on meetings, experience fewer hangovers, and feel energized to take on more meaningful work.
On the morning of March 20, Mathew Roberts was working at a chemical plant on the outskirts of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, when he was involved in an accident with a forklift. Unresponsive and in critical condition, the father of two and Iraq War veteran known for his big laugh and warm smile was taken from the Nutrien nitrogen plant to a local hospital, where he died of his injuries.
The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration is investigating the incident, along with local law enforcement, but Robertss family members said they are still waiting for answers.
The workplace death is not unusual in Louisiana, which has been ranked the sixth-most-dangerous state for workers in the U.S., according to a study that used data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. More than 200 chemical plants and refineries sit along an 85-mile stretch of the Mississippi River from Baton Rouge to New Orleans, which has been dubbed Cancer Alley because of the high rates of cancer linked to petrochemicals.
In recent years, there have been multiple chemical plant exposures or explosions in the state. In December, a possible explosion occurred at a Westlake Corp. chemical plant not far from the Nutrien plant. In October, four workers were sent to the hospital after being exposed to ammonia at a Formosa Plastics plant. In September, a hydrogen gas explosion at the nearby Chevron Renewable Energy Group plant injured two people.
Several weeks before Robertss accident, Elon Musks Department of Government Efficiency announced that it will close 11 OSHA field offices, including the one in Baton Rouge that is investigating Robertss death. It is the agencys only office in Louisiana, and its potential closure is raising concerns among workplace safety experts. The closures remain under review, per the U.S. Department of Labor, which oversees OSHA.
A Department of Labor spokesperson told Capital & Main, Occupational Safety and Health Administration inspectors continue to conduct legally required inspections and remain focused on OSHAs core mission to prevent injury, illness, and death in the workplace and promote safe and healthy workplaces for U.S. workers.
A spokesperson for DOGE did not respond to Capital & Mains request for comment.
Former OSHA Director David Michaels said by closing the office, those enormous oil and petrochemical facilities with significant safety and health hazards will be inspected even less frequently than they are now. By closing the office, the government will save $109,346, according to DOGE.
OSHA staffers in the office will have to choose between leaving OSHA entirely or relocating to another region hundreds of miles away, Michaels said. Staffers at the Baton Rouge office said theyre not aware of any layoffs, though rumors have been swirling since the DOGE announcement in mid-March.
Were still here, but I dont know for how long, said one staffer who asked not to be identified out of fear it would put their job in jeopardy.
In addition to the Baton Rouge office, which conducted 386 workplace inspections over the last year and assessed more than $750,000 in penalties for serious violations, DOGE is also planning to close field offices in Houston and in Mobile, Alabama. These closures will result in more injuries, illnesses, and deaths, Michaels said.
Musks efficiency mandate will end up affecting workers, said Bernard Fontaine Jr., a former OSHA compliance officer.
What theyre trying to do is consolidate offices and reduce costs, Fontaine said. But the impact of the services being provided is going to be dramatically reduced so that when people call and file a complaint, it may not be addressed for a very long period of time. By then, someone could be very sick.
This piece was originally published by Capital & Main, which reports from California on economic, political, and social issues.
Nathan Fielders comedy can feel like watching a slow-motion plane crash. On semi-scripted shows such as Nathan for You and The Rehearsal, the comedian makes real people squirm with his bizarre suggestions, which he offers with rigor mortis-level deadpan. Some of it is best viewed through the slightly parted fingers of a face-obscuring hand.
The second season of The Rehearsal, returning to HBO on April 20, is no exception. Like its predecessor, the show again uses elaborate role-play to game out difficult social scenarios, only this time the stakes are way higher. Season 2 focuses on the dynamic between copilotsand how it can lead to, or possibly prevent, plane crashes. But while the topic may be eerily timely, this season is truly about the universal experience of standing up to a superior at work.
In its first season, Fielder positioned The Rehearsal as a show where different people practice solving a new interpersonal problem each episode. Using a fleet of actors and expensive, movie-caliber sets, Fielder created a reality-simulation technique that allowed its subjects to rehearse, say, admitting to a friend theyd been lying for years about having a masters degree. By Episode 2, however, the show pivoted to helping one womanand Fielder himselfrehearse what it might be like to become parents. The remainder of the season was spent burrowing further down that (often uncomfortable) rabbit hole.
The second season instead dispenses with any pretense of being an anthology and announces its aviation concentration straight away. As glimpsed in the trailer, the seasons opening moments encapsulate everything the show will spend this batch of six episodes unpacking. Inside a cockpit, the first officer voices his disapproval of the pilots tactics. The pilot ignores him, and their plane crashes in a fiery wreckonly for the cockpit to be revealed as a motion simulator. Cue Fielder emerging in front of a projected inferno, a Mona Lisa smile on his face.
As they used to say on infomercials, theres got to be a better way.
At some point after the first season of The Rehearsal aired in 2022, well before the recent spate of plane crashes and near misses, Fielder apparently became interested in air disasters. While reading through endless pages of black box transcripts, he uncovered a distinct pattern. Whenever first officers seemed to sense an imminent problem, they often either fell short of a full-throated warning or buckled under the slightest pushback. What if, Fielder wondered, he could help first officers rehearse advocating for themselves more effectively?
Disagreeing with ones supervisor presents a classic conundrum. Say something and the boss might either overrule you or resent you for being right. Keep it to yourself, letting the chips fall where they may, and you might be the one getting thrown under the bus if theres any fallout. This thorny communication issue carries exponentially more urgency and risk, though, when it happens at high altitudes, with dozens of lives at stake.
[Photo: John P. Johnson/HBO]
Though he understands he might not be the right person to take on this particular communication conflict, Fielder recognizes a source of killer material when he sees one.
A lot of the comedians previous work mined humor out of the way people communicate. His breakout series Nathan for You, which ran on Comedy Central for four seasons in the 2010s, featured Fielder convincing small business owners to try out wild marketing strategies. Although the strategies themselves were the meat of the showa yogurt shop unveiling a poo-flavored option, for instance, to drum up publicitypart of the cringy fun was watching Fielder talk people into going through with them.
Hed present each ridiculous idea with a straight face and a feather-soft voice, then the owner would laugh nervously, unsure whether Fielder was serious. (Rule number one of these shows: Fielder is always serious.) Viewers could practically see the gears turning in the owners heads, questioning whether the reward of getting a plug for their business on a TV show will be worth the short-term pain of actually going through with a poo-flavored yogurt promotion. Invariably, theyd agree to whatever madness Fielder had in store, usually after an awkward silence.
[Photo: John P. Johnson/HBO]
In the second season of The Rehearsal, though, that equation has inverted. Instead of using his authority as an ambassador of television to talk people into doing something, hes teaching people to talk someone in a position of authority out of doing something.
Throughout the course of the season, as with most Fielder productions, some profoundand profoundly uncomfortabletruths come tumbling out. Also as per usual, the show is filled with surreal meta-moments, inventive tableaux, and the creator rappling with whether his own communication issues might stem from having the aura of a corporate IT guy with a dark secret.
Whether the comedian ultimately finds a practical method for making difficult cockpit conversations easier will remain unspoiled here. Watching the show, though, should provide some new ideas about how to communicate with ones bossespecially when theyre about to make a huge mistake.
Every few months, theres a new story or study or think piece on the exact dollar amount needed to afford retirement. The most recent is Northwestern Mutuals 2025 Planning & Progress Study, which found that Americans believe they need $1.26 million to retire comfortably.
Unfortunately, many people give up on the very idea of saving for retirement when they hear $1.26 million is the price tag for a comfortable (not lavish) retirement. Aiming for a seven-figure nest egg can feel out of reach for many of uswhich may explain why Northwestern Mutual also found that 51% of Americans expect to outlive their money.
But the reality of retirement is far more nuanced than studies like this make it seem. Not only is there no magic number that will ensure a well-funded and fulfilling retirement, but you also have a great deal of agency over your financial decisions now and in retirement.
Heres what you need to know about planning your retirement if youre worried that your portfolio will never measure up to the target number du jour.
$1.26 million is meaningless
Theres a reason why the Northwestern Mutual studyand others like itchoose to name a specific dollar figure as a retirement goal: its eye-catching. Every person who reads the study or scrolls past the headline will have a visceral and emotional reaction to that dollar amount.
But even though $1.26 million is a very specific amount of money, its also meaningless. For some people, $1.26 million is an astronomical sum. For others, it will barely cover the first five years of retirement. And both groups of people can create a fulfilling retirement, even though their nest egg isnt in the same zip code.
How much you really need to retire
Instead of focusing on the specific target amount listed in studies like these, its better to aim for a goal based on your personal financial situation. One common rule of thumb is to aim for a nest egg equal to 10x your final salary. This offers a more personalized metric to shoot for.
For example, Oliver earns $55,000 per year and is aiming for a nest egg of at least $550,000. But Cynthia, who earns $300,000 per year, has a goal of $3 million. A goal of $1.26 million could be inappropriate for both of them for different reasonsits too high for Oliver and too low for Cynthia.
Your retirement needs are personal and idiosyncratic and cant be summed up with a specific dollar amount. So you can feel free to ignore those numbers and focus on goals based on your financial situation.
The importance of flexibility
We often think of retirement planning as set in stone. You might ask yourself if you need $1.26 million to retire, assuming the answer is either yes or no. Similarly, the question of whether you can afford to retire at age 65 feels like it should have either a yes or no answer.
But retirement decisions are not nearly so cut-and-dried. Any retirement plan you make should include flexibility that allows you to make changes as circumstances change. That starts with crunching the numbers to figure out your retirement budget based on what you have, rather than an arbitrary target number. You can make changes to your plans, spending, or savings based on the real data.
This works for your planned retirement date, as well. If youre thinking about retiring at age 65, go ahead and plan for itbut make contingency plans if something changes and your anticipated retirement date is no longer an option.
Get the retirement you wantfor less
Embracing this kind of plan flexibility can even help with your big retirement dreams. Maybe you have a vision in your mind of retiring to a sun-soaked Greek isleand somehow ensuring that Colin Firth shows up.
But if you dont have the money to make your Mamma Mia! retirement dreams a reality, you dont have to give up on Kalokairi entirely. You can include more affordable versions of your dream into your retirement planningsuch as spending a month singing along to “Dancing Queen” on white beachesso that you have options once you’re ready to retire.
Retire on your terms
Theres no shortage of financial reporting that will make you feel like youre doing it all wrong, especially when it comes to retirement. While putting more money aside for retirement is never a bad idea (seriouslytransfer some money to your 401(k) right now!), you can let go of any anxiety you feel when your nest egg cant compete with the currently touted retirement target.
An easy way to calculate your retirement goal is to multiply your salary by 10, which gives you a target that fits your specific situation and needs. And no matter the size of your nest egg, build flexibility into your retirement plan for everything from timing to fulfilling your dreams. This will allow you to make your retirement work even if your circumstances change.
My brothers text messages can read like fragments of an ancient code: hru, wyd, plztruncated, cryptic, and never quite satisfying to receive. Ill often find myself second-guessing whether gr8 means actual excitement or whether its a perfunctory nod.
This oddity has nagged at me for years, so I eventually embarked upon a series of studies with fellow researchers Sam Maglio and Yiran Zhang. I wanted to know whether these clipped missives might undermine genuine dialogue, exploring the unspoken signals behind digital shorthand.
As we gathered data, surveyed people and set up experiments, it became clear that those tiny shortcutssometimes hailed as a hallmark of efficient communicationundermine relationships instead of simplifying them.
Short words lead to feeling shortchanged
Most people type ty and brb (for thank you and be right back) without batting an eye.
In a survey we conducted of 150 American texters ages 18 to 65, 90.1% reported regularly using abbreviations in their daily messages, and 84.2% believed these shortcuts had either a positive effect or no meaningful impact on how the messages were perceived by the recipients.
But our findings suggest that the mere inclusion of abbreviations, although seemingly benign, start feeling like a brush-off. In other words, whenever a texter chops words down to their bare consonants, recipients sense a lack of effort, which causes them to disengage.
Its a subtle but pervasive phenomenon that most people dont intuit.
We started with controlled lab tests, presenting 1,170 participants ages 15 to 80 with one of two near-identical text exchanges: one set sprinkled with abbreviations, the other fully spelled out. In every single scenario, participants rated the abbreviating sender as less sincere and far less worthy of a reply.
The deeper we dug, the more consistent the pattern became.
Whether people were reading messages about weekend plans or major life events, the presence of truncated words and phrases such as plz, sry, or idk for please, sorry, or I dont know made the recipients feel shortchanged.
The phenomenon didnt stop with strangers. In more experiments, we tested whether closeness changed the dynamic. If youre texting a dear friend or a romantic partner, can you abbreviate to your hearts content?
Evidently not. Even people imagining themselves chatting with a longtime buddy reported feeling a little put off by half-spelled words, and that sense of disappointment chipped away at how authentic the interaction felt.
From Discord to dating apps
Still, we had nagging doubts: Might this just be some artificial lab effect?
We wondered whether real people on real platforms might behave differently. So we took our questions to Discord, a vibrant online social community where people chat about everything from anime to politics. More importantly, Discord is filled with younger people who use abbreviations like its second nature.
We messaged random users asking them to recommend TV shows to watch. One set of messages fully spelled out our inquiry; the other set was filled with abbreviations. True to our lab results, fewer people responded to the abbreviated ask. Even among digital nativesyouthful, tech-savvy users who are well versed in the casual parlance of text messaginga text plastered with shortcuts still felt undercooked.
If a few missing letters can sour casual chats, what happens when love enters the equation? After all, texting has become a cornerstone of modern romance, from coy flirtations to soul-baring confessions. Could plz call me inadvertently jeopardize a budding connection? Or does u up? hint at more apathy than affection? These questions guided our next foray, as we set out to discover whether the swift efficiency of abbreviations might actually short-circuit the delicate dance of courtship and intimacy.
Our leap into the realm of romance culminated on Valentines Day with an online speed dating experiment.
We paired participants for timed dates inside a private messaging portal, and offered half of them small incentives to pepper their replies with abbreviations such as ty instead of thank you.
When it came time to exchange contact information, the daters receiving abbreviation-heavy notes were notably more reluctant, citing a lack of effort from the other party. Perhaps the most eye-opening evidence came from a separate study running a deep analysis of hundreds of thousands of Tinder conversations. The data showed that messages stuffed with abbreviations such as u and rly scored fewer overall responses and short-circuited conversations.
Its the thought that counts
We want to be clear: Were not campaigning to ban lol. Our research suggests that a few scattered abbreviations dont necessarily torpedo a friendship. Nor does every one of the many messages sent to many people every day warrant the full spelling-out treatment. Dont care about coming across as sincere? Dont need the recipient to respond? Then by all means, abbreviate away.
Instead, its the overall reliance on condensed phrases that consistently lowers our impression of the senders sincerity. When we type plz a dozen times in a conversation, we risk broadcasting that the other person isnt worth the extra letters. The effect may be subtle in a single exchange. But over time, it accumulates.
If your ultimate goal is to nurture a deeper connection, be it with a friend, a sibling, or a prospective date, taking an extra second to type thanks might be a wise investment.
Abbreviations began as a clever workaround for clunky flip phones, with its keypad texting (recall tapping 5 three times to type the letter L) and strict monthly character limits. Yet here we are, long past those days, still trafficking in omg and brb, as though necessity never ended.
After all of those studies, Ive circled back to my brothers texts with fresh eyes. Ive since shared with him our findings about how those tiny shortcuts can come across as half-hearted or indifferent. He still fires off brb in half his texts, and Ill probably never see him type Im sorry in full. But somethings shifting: He typed thank you a few times, even threw in a surprisingly heartfelt hope youre well the other day.
Its a modest shift, but maybe thats the point. Sometimes, just a few more letters can let someone know they really matter.
David Fang is a PhD student in marketing at Stanford University.
Sam Maglio, an associate professor of marketing and psychology at the University of Toronto, contributed to the writing of this article.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The Easter holiday is celebrated by billions of Christians around the world. But even if you are not partaking in the festivities, store closures or reduced store hours might impact you. Heres what to expect on Easter Sunday.
Grocery store closures
Whether you need to stock up on eggs and chocolate bunnies at the last minute or simply run out of milk, be aware that many supermarkets are closed for Easter Sunday, including Aldi, Costco, H-E-B, and Sam’s Club.
For last-minute purchases, try a Trader Joe’sunless you live in Portland, Maine, where the local stores will be closed.
Albertsons, Safeway, Jewel-Osco, Acme, Vons, and Tom Thumb will all be open.
Clothing store closures
Plan to shop ahead for your Easter outfit, as retailers JCPenney, Macys, Marshalls, Target, Kohls, and TJ Maxx will close their doors Sunday, as will HomeGoods, Sierra, and Homesense locations.
Walmart will remain open for business. For the status of other major retailers today, you can find a nice roundup from USA Today.
Home improvement and crafting store closures
Some hobbies might have to wait as well.
If Lowes is your home improvement store of choice, know that it will be closed on Easter. Home Depot is a good alternative.
In a similar vein, if Michaels or Hobby Lobby are your craft supply spots, stock up ahead of the holiday, as neither will be staffed for your creative pursuits.
Pharmacy closures
Major pharmacy chains such as Walgreens and CVS will be open for Easter but may have reduced hours, so check ahead if you need medication.
A brief look at religious affiliation in America
The U.S. remains a predominantly Christian nation. A 2023 Gallup Poll found 68% of the country considered themselves Christian. There is diversity of denomination in that figure. Breaking it down further, 33% identify as Protestant, 22% are Catholic, and 13% are considered other or just prefer the Christian label.
Around the U.S., about 90,000 tons of nuclear waste is stored at more than 100 sites in 39 states, in a range of different structures and containers.
For decades, the nation has been trying to send it all to one secure location.
A 1987 federal law named Yucca Mountain, in Nevada, as a permanent disposal site for nuclear wastebut political and legal challenges led to construction delays. Work on the site had barely started before Congress ended the projects funding altogether in 2011.
The 94 nuclear reactors currently operating at 54 power plants continue to generate more radioactive waste. Public and commercial interest in nuclear power is rising because of concerns regarding emissions from fossil fuel power plants and the possibility of new applications for smaller-scale nuclear plants to power data centers and manufacturing. This renewed interest gives new urgency to the effort to find a place to put the waste.
In March 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments related to the effort to find a temporary storage location for the nations nuclear waste; a ruling is expected by late June. No matter the outcome, the decades-long struggle to find a permanent place to dispose of nuclear waste will probably continue for many years to come.
I am a scholar who specializes in corrosion; one focus of my work has been containing nuclear waste during temporary storage and permanent disposal. There are generally two forms of significantly radioactive waste in the U.S.: waste from making nuclear weapons during the Cold War, and waste from generating electricity at nuclear power plants. There are also small amounts of other radioactive waste, such as that associated with medical treatments.
Waste from weapons manufacturing
Remnants of the chemical processing of radioactive material needed to manufacture nuclear weapons, often called defense waste, will eventually be melted along with glass, with the resulting material poured into stainless steel containers. These canisters are 10 feet tall and 2 feet in diameter, weighing approximately 5,000 pounds when filled.
For now, though, most of it is stored in underground steel tanks, primarily at Hanford, Washington, and Savannah River, South Carolina, key sites in U.S. nuclear weapons development. At Savannah River, some of the waste has already been processed with glass, but much of it remains untreated.
At both of those locations, some of the radioactive waste has already leaked into the soil beneath the tanks, though officials have said there is no danger to human health. Most of the current efforts to contain the waste focus on protecting the tanks from corrosion and cracking to prevent further leakage.
Waste from electricity generation
The vast majority of nuclear waste in the U.S. is spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear power plants.
Before it is used, nuclear fuel exists as uranium oxide pellets that are sealed within zirconium tubes, which are themselves bundled together. These bundles of fuel rods are about 12 to 16 feet long and about 5 to 8 inches in diameter. In a nuclear reactor, the fission reactions fueled by the uranium in those rods emit heat that is used to create hot water or steam to drive turbines and generate electricity.
After about three to five years, the fission reactions in a given bundle of fuel slow down significantly, even though the material remains highly radioactive. The spent fuel bundles are removed from the reactor and moved elsewhere on the power plants property, where they are placed into a massive pool of water to cool them down.
After about five years, the fuel bundles are removed, dried, and sealed in welded stainless steel canisters. These canisters are still radioactive and thermally hot, so they are stored outdoors in concrete vaults that sit on concrete pads, also on the power plants property. These vaults have vents to ensure air flows past the canisters to continue cooling them.
As of December 2024, there were more than 315,000 bundles of spent nuclear fuel rods in the U.S., and 3,800-plus dry storage casks in concrete vaults above ground, located at current and former power plants across the country.
Even reactors that have been decommissioned and demolished still have concrete vaults storing radioactive waste, which must be secured and maintained by the power company that owned the nuclear plant.
The threat of water
One threat to these storage methods is corrosion.
Because they need water to both transfer nuclear energy into electricity and to cool the reactor, nuclear power plants are always located alongside soures of water.
In the U.S., nine are within 2 miles of the ocean, which poses a particular threat to the waste containers. As waves break on the coastline, saltwater is sprayed into the air as particles. When those salt and water particles settle on metal surfaces, they can cause corrosion, which is why its common to see heavily corroded structures near the ocean.
At nuclear waste storage locations near the ocean, that salt spray can settle on the steel canisters. Generally, stainless steel is resistant to corrosion, which you can see in the shiny pots and pans in many Americans kitchens. But in certain circumstances, localized pits and cracks can form on stainless steel surfaces.
In recent years, the U.S. Department of Energy has funded research, including my own, into the potential dangers of this type of corrosion. The general findings are that stainless steel canisters could pit or crack when stored near a seashore. But a radioactive leak would require not only corrosion of the container but also of the zirconium rods and of the fuel inside them. So it is unlikely that this type of corrosion would result in the release of radioactivity.
A long way off
A more permanent solution is likely years, or decades, away.
Not only must a long-term site be geologically suitable to store nuclear waste for thousands of years, but it must also be politically palatable to the American people. In addition, there will be many challenges associated with transporting the waste, in its containers, by road or rail, from reactors across the country to wherever that permanent site ultimately is.
Perhaps there will be a temporary site whose location passes muster with the Supreme Court. But in the meantime, the waste will stay where it is.
Gerald Frankel is a distinguished professor of materials science and engineering at the Ohio State University.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Patricia Grabarek and Katina Sawyer are cofounders of Workr Beeing, where they help clients create thriving workplace environments. They are both industrial/organizational psychologists. Patricia has a background in consulting and internal roles, having led people analytics and talent management initiatives for more than 60 companies. Katina is also an associate professor of management and organizations at the University of Arizona, where she focuses her research on workplace wellbeing.
Whats the big idea?
Achieving a culture of wellness at work goes way beyond a steps challenge or mindfulness program. Leaders need to demonstrate vulnerability about their own struggles to build bonds of trust and openness with their employees. They also need to spread gratitude and positivity. Once these pillars of a so-called Generator leader are put into action, then employees will be more willing to step up, engage, and invest their best effort for their team and company.
Below, coauthors Grabarek and Sawyer share five key insights from their new book, Leading for Wellness: How to Create a Team Culture Where Everyone Thrives. Listen to the audio versionread by both authorsin the Next Big Idea app.
1. Workplace wellness matters.
When leaders support employee wellness, employees are healthier, perform better, achieve their goals, and are more committed to their work. In addition, when employees feel better, they are more committed to the leaders and team members helping them feel that way. In turn, they help leaders achieve their goals, band together with others to tackle challenges, and ultimately create more innovative and productive workplaces.
Yet, organizations struggle to support employee well-being. A recent Gallup poll found that employee engagement has sunken to an all-time low, with only 31% of employees reporting that they are engaged at work. Whats worse, not engaged or actively disengaged employees account for approximately $1.9 trillion in lost productivity nationally. Caring for employees well-being and improving the bottom line are aligned goals.
Companies that dedicate time and money to employees health and wellness do better. Its as simple as that. Even better, improving employee wellness can also improve society. Happy, healthy employees bring positivity to their communities, making the world a better place.
Our research repeatedly concluded that leaders are the key to driving employee well-being. While most organizations invest wellness dollars in step challenges, mindfulness programs, or team-building events, we find that the quality of day-to-day experiences with leaders is what really matters.
We refer to leaders who promote healthy and supportive workplaces (while also driving results) as Generators. We term leaders who do the opposite Extinguishers, as they deplete workplaces of energy by undermining their teams well-being. The aim is to become a Generator: the type of leader that employees aspire to work for and whom they can be proud to represent.
2. No one wants a superhero.
Employees dont want superheroes for leaders. Employees want authenticity from their leaders. They are looking for leaders who show their true selves at work. They do not trust inauthentic leaders who seem to put on a facade. Employees trust authentic leaders because they believe they are more willing to be transparent and honest. Employees can then better predict how their leader will behave. This predictability makes employees more likely to take risks by sharing their own truth and raising important issues that good leaders would want on their radar. As a result, employees with authentic leaders perform better, are more productive, more engaged, and have better well-being.
Lets talk about a leader named Melanie, who is a senior executive at a telecommunications company. When interviewing her for our research, she described herself as having been a leader who always had her game face on. She admitted that she started her leadership journey as a no-nonsense leader. She believed her team would find comfort in her tough exterior when things became stressful or hard. That she could be a rock they would depend on. Instead, she learned that if her team members were struggling, they avoided bringing things up to her. Her perfect exterior made her unapproachable.
She told us everything changed for her after enduring an unimaginable tragedy in her family. Her youngest sibling was murdered in a horrific random act of violence. This obviously impacted her greatly, but she continued to show up at work while hiding her true self and emotional state. Even though she did her best to hide her experience and feelings, her team could tell something was off. She was falling apart, and others could sense the shift.
Then, one day, a campaign started around the company to support mental health. Other leaders started sharing their struggles, being vulnerable with the whole organization. She appreciated that their openness allowed her to know them as whole, complex people. Melanie began to wonder if her team would appreciate her more if she did the same.
In her next team meeting, an employee shared that they were dealing with a challenge that could derail a project. At that moment, Melanie felt overwhelmed with the information and decided to take a pause. She told the team she appreciated all their hard work and was having a reaction to this new information because of the struggles shes been hiding in her personal life. She then proceeded to tell the team what she had been going through and how it had been impacting her and her work. To Melanies pleasant surprise, the team quickly rallied around her with empathy and compassion. They stepped up and wanted to help her as she navigated her loss. The team was more than willing to accept her as an imperfect leader.
The team culture shifted that day. Other people began opening up, and they would flag challenges and issues as they happened. They were more willing to ask for help and give support to other team members as authenticity and vulnerability became the norm.
One practice we teach leaders is to write struggle statements. Struggle statements help you communicate a set of challenges or difficulties you face at work, both past and present. When you are open about your struggles, employees can build their trust in you, and your openness helps them open up to you. This situation is great for employees and leaders because teams that can be open about their struggles usually do so because they are in a safe and supportive environment, making them more productive and higher-performing.
3. Its the tone, not the time.
Being a role model for balancing work and life and showing positivity and gratitude toward team members can inspire employees to follow your example. Positivity and gratitude are contagious. When leaders share these sentiments with employees, those employees spread them to others.
One of our favorite examples involves a leader who made it a point to spread positivity and gratitude to his team. To make sure he remembered to show gratitude to his team, he would put three coins in his left pocket at the start of each day. Each time he told someone on his team they were valued or thanked them for their efforts, he moved a coin to the other pocket. The physical reminder to show gratitude kept him on track and ensured he lived out his intentions. After a while, though, he didnt need the coins. His gratitude practice had become a habit. Even better, he noticed that his employees were paying i forward to one another. With a small shift in his behavior, he had created lasting change in his team culture.
Employees are motivated to help each other if they see you and other team members doing the same thing. Generators create cultures of work-life balance, positivity, gratitude, and support. As team members begin practicing good behaviors, leaders dont have to be the sole architects or reinforcers of the culture. Employees become cultural caretakers so that leaders have their time freed up to focus on other things.
Generators also understand how to become confidants to their employees quickly and meaningfully. To do so, they leverage what we coined as the SWIFT Process:
Setting aside time for relationship-building sprints.
Welcoming others warmly.
Intentionally inquiring about employees lives.
Following up with appropriate questions to dig deeper.
Taking time to reflect on how to improve relationships with employees.
By creating a positive team environment and building strong relationships with employees, Generators set the right tone for their teams: they focus on the quality of the work experience rather than narrowly focusing on how many hours are worked as a measure of success or productivity.
4. Work should support life.
Work should support life instead of the other way around. As a leader, its important to be elastic by demonstrating flexibility and recognizing that your way isnt right for everyone. Its also important to protect and respect employees boundaries between work and life. Generators are boundary bouncers because they help employees set boundaries, serve to enforce those boundaries, and block employees from people or situations that violate boundaries. Boundary bouncers also protect their own boundaries by leading by example.
Generators value work-life balance and recognize that employees preferences for balancing work and life may differ from their own (and other employees).
For example, people differ in their preferences for integrating or segmenting work. Segmenters like to keep work and life separate. These employees like to put in their nine-to-five and then fully stop working at the end of the day. They do not like it when their personal life bleeds into their work life and vice versa. When they are working, they want to focus on work. When they are away from work, being pinged by someone from work is particularly stressful.
On the other hand, some people prefer to integrate work and life. Katina and I both prefer integration. We are happy to shift between both domains throughout the day. Integrators may take a few meetings in the morning, then do a workout at lunch, followed by another meeting. After that, they might do laundry and complete a few work tasks. They may pause around 5 p.m. to spend time with family and grab dinner but then log back in for an hour at 7 p.m. to finish some tasks. They shift between work and personal life seamlessly, and it helps their productivity.
Generators create work environments that better match employees unique needs and preferences in managing their work and life. When Generators earn employees trust, make them feel cared for, and act in ways that honor their preferences and needs for managing work and life, they retain their employees longer.
5. One size doesnt fit all.
One size doesnt fit all when it comes to wellness. Generators recognize this and engage in what we call person-centered planning, a practice centered on the famous work of psychologist Carl Rogers, who used it in a clinical setting. Engaging in person-centered planning helps Generators find solutions that are tailored to employees real wellness needs, which can vary significantly from employee to employee.
Person-centered planning is effective because it helps leaders to get to the root of the actual problems that employees are facing, so solutions can be tailored to their needs.
Consider this example. An employee, Ollie, struggles with staying organized. His leader, Marta, is very skilled at organization and easily structures her workday, assignments, and deadlines. If Ollie shares with Marta that he is struggling with organization, she might assume that he just isnt putting in the effort. She might also assume that tips or strategies that help her stay organized will automatically work for Ollie. Ollies confidence might decrease as he is overlooked for opportunities, or he might take her advice and follow similar strategies that she has, but without getting results. Instead, if Marta engaged in person-centered planning, she would follow three steps:
First, Marta would provoke honest and transparent responses. She would create an open and comfortable environment for Ollie to share what is getting in his way regarding his organizational skills.
Second, she would suspend judgment. Even if Ollies situation doesnt resonate with her own experience, she will listen and validate his perspective, recognizing that she has likely struggled with things before that others found easy.
Finally, she would show empathy by working with Ollie to devise solutions that work for him. Instead of feeling for him, she feels with him, invoking a more collaborative and unified stance toward solving the problem.
This three-part process helps employees feel safe when sharing their wellness struggles, allowing leaders to respond to their challenges in ways that drive effective long-term solutions.
Taking a person-centered approach also requires that leaders chip away at mental health stigma at work. Generators are vulnerable about their own mental health challenges, speak inclusively about mental health, and use experts to help their teams understand mental health more deeply. Reducing this stigma is another way that Generators learn what employees really need and allow these employees to gain true acceptance and validation from their teams.
This article originally appeared in Next Big Idea Club magazine and is reprinted with permission.
First impressions matterthey shape how were judged in mere seconds, research shows. People are quick to evaluate others competence, likability and honesty, often relying on superficial cues such as appearance or handshake strength. While these snap judgments can be flawed, they often have a lasting impact. In employment, first impressions not only affect hiring choices but also decisions about promotion years later.
As a researcher in cognitive science, Ive seen firsthand how first impressions can pose a challenge for individuals with autism spectrum disorder, or ASD. People with ASD often display social behaviorssuch as facial expressions, eye contact, gestures, and sense of personal spacethat can differ from those of neurotypical individuals.
These differences are often misunderstood, leading people with ASD to be perceived as awkward, odd, or even deceptive. People form these negative impressions in just seconds and report being reluctant to talk to, hang out with, or even live near people on the spectrum.
Its not surprising, then, that unfavorable first impressions create barriers for people with ASD in the workplace.
The interview trap
It starts with the job interview. Whether youre seeking a position as a computer programmer at a tech firm or a dog groomer at a vet clinic, the job interview is a critical gateway. Success depends on your ability to think on your feet, communicate your qualifications, and present yourself as likable, agreeable, and collegial.
My research demonstrates that job seekers with ASD often perform poorly in interviews due to the social demands of the situation. This is true even when the candidate is highly qualified for the job they are seeking.
In one study, my colleagues and I videotaped mock job interviews with 30 young adults (half with ASD, half neurotypical) who were all college students without an intellectual disability. We asked them to discuss their dream jobs and qualifications for five minutes. Afterward, evaluators rated them on social traits, such as likability, enthusiasm, and competence, and indicated how likely they were to hire each interviewee. As in most professional interviews, the evaluators werent aware that some candidates were on the autism spectrum.
Candidates with autism spectrum disorder were consistently rated less favorably on all social dimensions compared with people without the condition, and those unfavorable social ratings weighed heavily on hiring decisions. Even though candidates with ASD were rated as equally qualified as neurotypical candidates, they were significantly less likely to be hired.
Interestingly, when evaluators only read the candidates interview transcripts without watching the interviews, ratings for ASD candidates were the same as, or even better than, those for neurotypical candidates. This suggests that its not just what candidates say in an interview but how they present themselves socially that affects hiring decisions.
This is especially problematic for jobs that require minimal social interaction (think data analyst or landscaper), where a candidates qualifications should be the main consideration. By relying on interviews as a primary screening tool, employers may miss out on competent, qualified applicants with unique strengths.
Rethinking what makes a good candidate
Scientists have explored whether its possible to teach adults with ASD how to improve their interview skills, for example by maintaining more eye contact or standing at a socially acceptable distance from an interviewer.
While such training can help, it addresses only a small part of the problem, and I think this approach may not significantly improve employment outcomes for autistic adults.
For one, it reduces the challenges faced by adults with ASD to a limited set of behaviors. ASD is a complex condition, and research shows that the negative evaluations of individuals with ASD are not driven by a single difference or a collection of specific differences, but rather by the individuals overall presentation.
In addition, this type of training often encourages individuals to mask their autistic traits, which could make a stressful interview even more difficult. Finally, if ASD candidates successfully mask their autism during the interview but cant maintain that mask once they are hired, their longevity in the position could be at risk.
A more effective approach may be to change how interviews are conducted and how candidates are perceived. This includes giving employers meaningful education about autism and giving job applicants a way to disclose their diagnosis without penalty. Research shows that when people know more about autism spectrum disorder, they have more positive views of people with ASD. In addition, ratings of people with ASD are often more favorable when evaluators know about their diagnosis. Combining these two approachesthat is, pairing ASD education for employers with diagnostic disclosure for candidatesmay lead to better outcomes.
My colleagues and I explored this possibility in a series of studies. Again, we showed raters the mock job interviews of candidates with and without ASD. This time, however, some evaluators watched a brief educational video about autism, learning about characteristics and strengths often associated with ASD before evaluating the mock interviews. In addition, these raters knew which candidates had an ASD diagnosis.
Even though raters still perceived the candidates with ASD as more awkward and less likable, they rated those candidates as equally qualified as neurotypical candidates and were just as likely to hire them. This boost in hiring ratings persisted even when the educational video about autism was viewed months before candidates were evaluated.
Notably, neither of these interventions was effective on its own. In different conditions, some evaluators simply got the training but didnt receive diagnostic information about candidates; others received no education about autism but were aware of which candidates had ASD. Both groups continued to select against candidates with ASD in hiring decisions, even though the candidates with ASD were rated as highly qualified. It appears that both knowing a person ha autism and understanding more about autism are important for overcoming negative first impressions.
We believe that our training fostered a greater understanding of the atypical interactive style and behaviors that can be common among adults with ASD. This understanding, when coupled with the knowledge of a candidates diagnosis, may have helped evaluators contextualize those behaviors and, in turn, place more emphasis on qualifications when making hiring decisions.
When hiring decisions are based on merit, both employees and employers benefit. First impressions, though impactful, can be deceptive and often bias decisions, particularly for individuals with ASD. Our findings highlight an important truth: Understanding autism enables employers to focus on qualifications, giving candidates with ASD a fair opportunity to succeed based on their true potential.
Cindi May is a professor of psychology at the College of Charleston.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
