Why Crabgrass Always Wins at Monopoly
Crabgrass is an ugly, obnoxious weed that is the scourge of the perfect lawn and its perfectionist gardener. Along with being an eyesore, it’s also responsible for a substantial amount of crop loss on commercial farms.
杂草为何容易重生
杂草丑陋而令人生厌。是整齐的草坪和崇尚完美主义园丁的祸害。除了难看之外，它还要为商业农场农作物收成大量受损承担责任。
Weeding Out Competition
Common wisdom says that crabgrass is hard to get rid of becau it crowds out the plants around it, and does not allow them to get enough space and nutrients. However, scientists
have long wondered if crabgrass dominates your lawn’s real estate by using a technique called allelopathy. This literally means “others suffering,” and occurs when a plant harms another by emitting toxic substances into the environment, usually through the soil.
Rearchers from Nankai University, China Agricultural University, and the Chine Academy of Sciences all found that crabgrass us this method of “weeding out” neighboring plants.
In their experiment, rearchers isolated three chemicals from crabgrass roots and nearby soil, and then added them to potted plants of wheat, maize, and soybeans. Sure enough, the plants treated with crabgrass toxins did not grow as well.
Chemical Warfare
Tests revealed that the compounds reduced the amount of carbon in the soil’s microbial biomass. This means crabgrass can actually change the makeup of the bacteria in the dirt around it. Since plants rely on bacteria in order to absorb key nutrients such as nitrog
en and organic compounds, the vicious weed makes life extremely hard on its surrounding neighbors.
醋的组词
红点颏鸟So the next time you squirt RoundUp on that pesky patch of crabgrass, remember that the weed is emitting a little herbicide of its own. It’s chemical warfare, right under your no.
小苏打的功效
淘汰竞争
按照常理，这种杂草很难根除是因为它排挤周围的植物使得它们没有充足的生长空间和养料。然而，科学家们一直想知道，这种杂草是否通过使用一种名为植化相克的方法支配你家草坪的居住权。这个术语字面上的意思是"非我族类，连根清除"。当某种植物通过释放有毒物质到环境中（通常通过土壤）来伤害其他植物时，这种现象就在发生。
来自南开大学，中国农业大学，和中国科学院的研究人员都发现这种杂草使用这个方法清
红豆牛奶冰
除周围的植物。
在实验中，研究人员从这种杂草的根部和其周围土壤中隔绝出三种化学物质，然后将它们加入盆栽的小麦，玉米和大豆中。不出所料，受这种杂草毒素影响的植物都生长不佳。
枸杞种植
化学战争
这些试验揭示了该复合物降低了碳在土壤中微生物生物量中碳的数量。这意味着这种杂草确实能够改变其周围泥土中细菌的组成。因为植物依靠细菌来吸收诸如氮和有机化合物这样的重要养分，邪恶的杂草使它的邻居的生存极为艰难。
所以下次，当你向那一撮讨厌的杂草喷除草剂时，要记住杂草自身会释放一些除草剂。在你的眼皮子底下进行一场化学战争。
How Google Picks New Employees (Hint: It's Not About Your Degree)
谷歌招聘新职员的五大标准
I’ve been having disagreements for years about the ufulness of college degrees as a measure of someone’s ability to be an outstanding employee. Now, don’t get me wrong – I don’t think it’s ever a bad thing to have a degree. I just think people make an assumption about formal education that’s often untrue. They assume that if two people are exactly the same in terms of age, life and job experience and demographics, and one has a college degree and the other doesn’t – that the one who has the degree will be a better employee and have a more successful career.
多年来，对于将大学文凭作为一些人是否能够成为优秀员工的衡量标准一事，我一直持有不同意见。但不要误会我的意思——我不认为获得学位会是件坏事。我只是认为，人们就正规教育作出的假设往往与真实不符。他们假设，如果两个人的年龄大致相仿，且无论生活与工作经历还是背景出身都类似，但其中一人拥有大学文凭，另一人则没有，那么拥有大学文凭的那个人将成为一位更加优秀的员工，并会在事业上取得更多成功。
So I was thrilled to read an article by Thomas L. Friedman in the NYT a few months ago, called “How To Get A Job At Google.” Friedman’s article expands upon an interview between Adam Bryant of the NYT and Lazlo Bock, SVP of People Operations for Google , where Bock goes into depth about the core attributes Google looks for when hiring. At one point, Bock says, “G.P.A.’s are worthless as a criteria for hiring, and test scores are worthless. … We found that they don’t predict anything.”
竞争英语所以，几个月前，我怀着兴奋的心情拜读了托马斯·弗里德曼（Thomas L. Friedman）在《纽约时报》撰写的一篇题为“如何在谷歌（Google）找到一份工作”的文章。弗里德曼的文章在《纽约时报》亚当·布莱恩特（Adam Bryant）对谷歌人事高级副总裁拉兹洛·波克（Lazlo Bock）的采访基础上进行了扩充。在此采访中，波克深入介绍了谷歌在招募人才时所寻找的核心特征。波克一度表示，“作为招聘的标准，总平均成绩（GPA）和测试成绩都毫无价值……我们发现它们并不能说明任何问题。”
My point exactly. Someone can do very well in college and not have what it takes to succeed in the real world – and vice versa. Bock went on to say that an increasing proportion of people hired at Google the days don’t have college degrees. Bock then shared the five criteria Google does u when evaluating job candidates. I was struck not only by the list, but by the order. Here’s my understanding of what he said, and why it’s important for any job eker:
冲菜的做法这与我的观点一拍即合。有些人在大学表现得非常出色，但在现实世界中却很难获得成功——反之亦然。波克接着说，在谷歌近期招聘的新职员中，没有大学文凭的人越来越多。之后，波克分享了谷歌在评估应聘者时采用的五项标准。让我惊讶的不仅仅是他们提供的这些标准本身，还有这五项标准的先后顺序。以下是我对他的言论的解读，以及这对求职者至关重要的原因：
5. Experti. Bock noted that, except for making sure that people in technical jobs having coding ability, experti is last on their list of five. They’ve found that the other four attributes (which I’ll get to in a minute) far outweigh experti when it comes to predicting the abilities that Google has found they need in their employees. Bock notes that experts are more likely to simply default to the tried-and-true. I’ve en this as well – when people lf-identify as “expert” in an area, or as “highly experienced,” there’s a much higher likelihood that they will strongly defend their existing point of view when questioned, rather than being curious…their identity is all too often wrapped up in being the authority, vs. finding a better solution.
