Tuesday, 16 June 2026
Global AI spending expected to surge 47 pc to $2.59 trillion in 2026
Father and Son Break Three World Records in 18,000 Mile Cycle Around the World



Sunday, 14 June 2026
India's media and entertainment industry to rise to Rs 3.3 trillion by 2028: Report
‘It just feels like right time for me to step away’: Williamson on retirement decision
Saturday, 13 June 2026
World Communication Awards 2026: Your chance to celebrate excellence

Coffee, hope, and football: The World Cup’s sleepless return


Mexico City: Actress Salama Hayek is seen before the group A match between Mexico and South Africa at the 2026 FIFA World Cup at Mexico City Stadium in Mexico City, Mexico, June 11, 2026. (Photo: Xinhua via IANS)
Mexico City: Singers Andrea Bocelli (L) and Ejae perform before the group A match between Mexico and South Africa at the 2026 FIFA World Cup at Mexico City Stadium in Mexico City, Mexico, June 11, 2026. (Photo: Xinhua via IANS)
Toronto: People attend the FIFA World Cup 2026 Countdown Concert in Toronto, Canada, on Wednesday, June 10, 2026. Ahead of the FIFA World Cup 2026, the live music celebration was held simultaneously in Toronto, Los Angeles and Mexico City across Canada, the United States and Mexico. (Photo: Xinhua via IANS)Worried about your job? You’re not alone. But there are proven ways to ease job insecurity
Unemployment in Australia is currently at 4.3% – below average for the past century. But last week, the Reserve Bank forecast unemployment will slowly climb from next year on, rising to 4.7% by mid-2028 – and possibly higher if the Middle East war drags on.
That forecast came after a long-running survey of 3,600 Australians – taken in the early weeks of the US-Israel war on Iran – found people thought their chances of losing their job had risen to 26.8%. Job insecurity fears haven’t been this high since 2020’s COVID-19 lockdowns, when unemployment hit 6.4%.
If worrying about keeping your job has been keeping you up at night, you’re far from alone.
But there are evidence-based things we can do – at an individual, organisational and government level – to manage job insecurity better in uncertain times.
How job stress hits our health and even our personality
Job insecurity can take a heavy toll on your mental and physical health.
There’s strong evidence from meta analyses – research where all the studies in that area are pulled together – that people are significantly more dissatisfied with work when experiencing job insecurity. The same study found job insecurity can also affect workers’ commitment to their organisation and undermine their job performance.
There’s also some evidence job insecurity can increase workplace bullying. When people feel really insecure, they’re more likely to lash out at others. The same study showed workers who’ve been bullied tend to feel more insecure in their work.
Our 2020 study, tracking 1,046 Australians over nearly a decade, suggested a prolonged period of job insecurity could even change people’s personalities: making them less emotionally stable, less agreeable and less conscientious.
5 ways to turn fear into action
It’s easy to fall into the trap of unhealthy coping strategies when you’re stressed about work. These can include drinking too much alcohol or “ruminating”: allowing worries to go around and around in your brain.
While these can feel hard to resist, they usually leave you feeling worse.
There are healthier coping strategies, backed by research evidence.
Actively planning your career: This sounds obvious, but it can make a big difference. In a study my colleagues and I did of more than 200 Europeans on short-term contracts, we found that insecurity increased the closer people got to the end of their contracts – unless people took proactive steps. Workers who took the initiative to engage in career planning and talk to supervisors and others about how to boost their skills did not experience job insecurity, even as their short-term contracts got close to ending.
Seeking social support: reaching out to other people – family, friends, colleagues or your boss – is a well-established way to help with work stressors, such as job insecurity. For instance, a meta analysis of three decades of data from 39 countries found social support can reduce feelings of job insecurity.
Building a network with informal mentors: You don’t need a formal mentor program to do this. In fact, past evidence has shown informal mentoring (usually someone you’ve approached yourself) can be more powerful than formal mentoring. And seek out more than one mentor: one person might help on digital skills, another might have advice on career planning.
Working on in-demand skills: If you know you have gaps in your skills, such as if you’re worker with no experience with artificial intelligence (AI), start taking small steps to fill those gaps. There are a wide range of free online courses you can do from places such as EdX and Coursera, through to relatively affordable “micro credential” courses from universities around the world.
Building a life beyond work: Research shows job insecurity is more harmful to people for whom work is highly central to their identity. A 2025 Australian study confirmed what decades of research has shown: engaging in other social roles beyond work – like being a parent, friend, or volunteer – can boost your self-esteem and wellbeing.
Employers and government should do more too
It’s unfair to expect individuals to handle job insecurity on their own. Employers and governments have important roles to play too. Here are just two examples.
Better workplace training: Australians are worried about losing work to AI. Federal government research last year found more Australians are secretly using artificial intelligence, often in the absence of clear workplace rules. If organisations want to retain good staff, it’s in their interests to invest in employee training, including in AI – and have clearer policies on its use.
Government investment in training and welfare: A 2022 study comparing 17 European nations found workers experienced less job insecurity in nations such as Denmark and Sweden, because they invest more in helping people get work, such as plentiful opportunities for re-skilling, training, and career counselling. Generous employment benefits also improve people’s wellbeing through fostering financial security.
In Australia, JobSeeker payments to 900,000 unemployed, working-age people still fall well below the poverty line, despite repeated recommendations to lift them higher.
There are few jobs for life anymore. But amid so much change, there’s more we can do more to help ourselves, our colleagues, employees and those who are already unemployed feel less job insecurity than Australians currently do.![]()
Sharon Kaye Parker, Australian Research Council Laureate Fellow, Curtin University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Friday, 12 June 2026
I used sound waves to make espresso. It could cut coffee‑brewing energy use by 75%
Francisco Trujillo, UNSW Sydney
Most of us think of espresso as a hot, high-pressure ritual. Finely ground coffee goes into a machine, boiling water is forced through it, and in about 30 seconds we get a concentrated shot with crema, aroma, bitterness, body and caffeine.
As someone from Colombia, I like to think coffee is in my blood – and I’m proud to come from a country known for producing some of the best coffee beans in the world.
So perhaps that’s why I have spent a lot of time in my laboratory with my team asking a simple question: does espresso really need hot water?
Our new research suggests the answer may be no.
Low energy, full strength
We have developed what we call an ultrasonic espresso: a room-temperature brewing process that uses high-frequency sound waves to extract the flavour, oils, aroma and caffeine from coffee grounds. The result is an espresso-strength coffee made in under three minutes, but needing far less energy than the conventional method.
Saving up to 75% of energy by not heating the water is a minor benefit for home users or small coffee shops. But for companies making ready-to-drink coffee products at industrial scale, it could be very significant indeed.
A concentrated room-temperature coffee could be used directly in bottled drinks, milk-based beverages or cold coffee products. It can also be shipped as a concentrate and diluted later. This would reduce not only energy use, but potentially processing time as well.
Ultrasound replaces heat
The key to the new process is ultrasound. These are sound waves above the range of human hearing.
In our system, a small metal device called a transducer presses against the side of a traditional espresso basket and makes it vibrate rapidly. Those vibrations move through the water and coffee grounds.
This creates a phenomenon known as acoustic cavitation. Tiny bubbles form and collapse in the liquid.
When these bubbles collapse near coffee particles, they produce microscopic jets and forces that act a little like scrubbing brushes. They pit and fracture the surface of the coffee grounds, helping flavour compounds, oils and caffeine move into the water much faster than they normally would at room temperature.
In other words, ultrasound helps us replace heat with mechanical energy.
Water, grind and time
This is not the same as cold brew. Cold brew is usually made by steeping coffee in cold water for 12 to 24 hours. It tends to be smooth, mellow and much less concentrated than espresso. In earlier work, we used ultrasound to speed up cold brew dramatically.
But the challenge in this project was different: could we produce something with the strength, body and intensity of espresso, without heating the water?
Grind size also mattered. Finer grounds allowed us to extract flavour more rapidly. Finally, we tested how long the ultrasound should be applied. We found the sweet spot was about two-and-a-half to three minutes.
The taste test
Of course, making a concentrated coffee in the laboratory is one thing. The real test is whether people want to drink it.
So we ran a blind evaluation with around 100 regular coffee drinkers. They were not trained judges; they were everyday consumers who drink coffee at least once a week.
We served them four coffees in identical cups: traditional espresso, ultrasound-brewed espresso, traditional filter coffee and ultrasound-brewed filter coffee. All were freshly prepared, cooled to the same temperature and presented in random order.
For the espresso samples, participants could not reliably tell the traditional and ultrasonic versions apart. There were no significant differences in aroma, flavour, bitterness or overall liking. For filter coffee, the ultrasound version was actually preferred overall, with participants rating its bitterness more pleasantly.
Those results show espresso may not need to begin with hot water after all. By using sound waves to shake the coffee grounds, we were able to create the same richness, body and intensity, but with far less energy.![]()
Francisco Trujillo, Senior Lecturer, School of Chemical Engineering, UNSW Sydney
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Thursday, 11 June 2026
Birth rates are declining in most of the world, including Australia. Here’s why that really matters
Liz Allen, Australian National University
Birth rates have been declining worldwide since the peak of the post-second world war baby boom. Birth rates have now reached below replacement in most of the world, including Australia. Put simply, populations on average aren’t replacing themselves.
Everyone from Elon Musk to Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, to the pope have opinions on declining total fertility (or birth) rates – the average number of births per woman.
Overpopulation has dominated popular discourse since the 1960s. While fears of overpopulation remain, especially tied to immigration, concerns have shifted to depopulation and the related economic and national security issues.
Overpopulation fears to depopulation woes
In his 1968 book The Population Bomb, Paul Ehrlich warned the 1970s would bring “people, people, people, people” and an overpopulation “cancer” resulting in famine and war. Human extinction was imminent, we were warned.
Overpopulation-associated human extinction has not come to be.
The global total fertility rate has more than halved since 1950. Average birth rates for OECD countries now sit at 1.46 births per woman, well below the 2.1 required for generational replacement.
World population decline is projected by the mid-2080s. China is now in its fourth year of population decline. South Korea has been declining since 2019 with its near-global record low birth rates. Germany has seen deaths outnumber births since 1972. Japan, Greece, Italy, Cuba and Thailand are also among those in the depopulation club.
Without immigration, the United Kingdom would also see population decline, with deaths outnumbering births. Australia is about a generation away from the same fate. Immigration controls have seen depopulation in Canada.
Birth rates a solution to the ageing ‘problem’
Enormous advancements since the 1950s, mostly in health and medical technologies like immunisation, mean humans are living longer. We’re also having fewer children, and as a result populations are ageing.
An ageing population is a mark of success and human ingenuity, but economic systems tend to view ageing societies as problematic.
Workers and working-aged people are essential to maintain a healthy economy. Individual income taxpayers are the top source of federal government revenue in Australia. Too few people of working age replacing those retiring can seriously undermine economic wellbeing, forcing governments to do more service provision with less financial resources.
Below-replacement fertility and its implications for government bottom lines have resulted in Australian politicians calling on Australians to have more babies. “Have one for mum, one for dad, and one for the country”, treasurer Peter Costello famously said in 2004.
In 2020, former prime minister Tony Abbott suggested the wrong kind of women were having children, calling on “middle class” women to have more. Talking the budget, treasurer Jim Chalmers in 2024 said it would be “better if birth rates were higher”.
Human catastrophe of low birth rates
People are increasingly saying the choice to have children is constrained by external factors. Worldwide, around one-in-five surveyed by the United Nations said fears about the future would or has resulted in them having fewer children than they wanted.
Housing affordability, economic stability, gender inequality and climate change present insurmountable barriers for having a much-wanted family.
The lack of choice to have children in below-replacement regions, I’d argue is indeed a human catastrophe. How is it that we’ve allowed society to become so hostile that children are out of the question for so many who want them?
The intergenerational bargain is well and truly corrupted.
We are confronted with the tough question of who will care for us with the children gone.
Can a human catastrophe be avoided?
The burden of having a family falls on working-aged people, especially women.
A baby bonus or one-off payment is unlikely to change people’s minds and increase the total fertility rate; such payments merely change timing. Instead, increasing total fertility rates requires a comprehensive suite of measures from a policy perspective.
Tackling the big four big domains of housing, the economy, gender and climate encompass issues such as
- secure, affordable and appropriate housing
- employment and income security
- accessible childcare
- social and workplace gender equality
- climate change action.
People of childbearing age aren’t being hedonistic when making family and fertility decisions. They’re not thinking about themselves, they’re actually thinking about the future world and weighing what that might look like for prospective children.
Loss of hope among people of childbearing age, including fears of being left behind, contribute to overall concerns about an insecure future.
Not only is the human catastrophe of low births rates reflecting more widespread concerns, such as insecurity, it could also be undermining social cohesion.
Rather than an exploding bomb of overpopulation, the world faces an economic and social implosion due to lacking substantive supports necessary to help raise much-wanted children.
Surely it’s beyond time we ask people what they actually need – and give it to them.![]()
Liz Allen, Demographer, POLIS Centre for Social Policy Research, Australian National University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Sunday, 7 June 2026
How do I know if my electric blanket or heated throw is safe?
As temperatures drop across Australia, many households are pulling electric blankets and heated throws out of storage. For many, they’re among the cheapest and most energy efficient ways to stay warm during winter.
But some of us are understandably worried about fire risk. So how do you know your electric blanket is actually safe to use?
Is it compliant?
Modern electric blankets are generally considered safe when they comply with Australian electrical standards, as long as you follow the instructions.
But damaged, ageing or poorly manufactured blankets really can create serious fire and burn risks. According to Australian fire authorities, we should treat electric blankets like any other electrical appliance and inspect them regularly for damage.
The good news is there are several simple checks you can use to determine whether an electric blanket is safe.
The first thing to check – ideally before you buy – is whether the blanket complies with Australian safety requirements. Electric blankets sold in Australia must comply with the Australian and New Zealand Standard 60335.2.17, which applies to flexible heating appliances such as electric blankets and heated throws.
How do you know it’s compliant? The tag won’t necessarily list the standard. Look for the regulatory compliance mark – it looks like a checkmark in a triangle. This symbol indicates the supplier has declared the product complies with applicable Australian safety requirements.
The mark is especially important when buying products online – some imported electrical goods may not comply with Australian safety standards. A blanket may appear normal on the outside while containing poor-quality internal wiring or unsafe electrical components.
Another important factor is the age of the blanket. Many Australians continue using electric blankets for far longer than recommended. Most manufacturers and safety organisations generally recommend replacing electric blankets after about five to ten years, depending on their condition and frequency of use.
Older blankets may lack many of the safety protections now common in newer models, including overheat protection systems and automatic shut-off technology. These safety features are worth considering when purchasing a new blanket.
Is it stored properly?
One of the most common mistakes people make is folding blankets tightly during summer storage. This can damage the internal heating elements and weaken insulation around the wires.
Electric blankets should ideally be stored flat or loosely rolled rather than tightly folded. Don’t put anything heavy on top when storing them, either.
That’s because over time, the internal heating wires can weaken at the points where they were folded and under pressure. In some cases, damage may not even be visible from the outside.
There are several warning signs that may indicate internal wire damage, which means the electric blanket is unsafe and should no longer be used. You should immediately unplug and replace a blanket if you notice:
- hot spots or uneven heating
- scorch marks or burn smells
- frayed fabric or exposed wires
- stiff or lumpy sections inside the blanket
- flickering heat
- a controller that feels unusually hot, loose, or damaged.
Use general caution
Certain groups of people may need extra caution when using electric blankets. Older adults, people with diabetes and individuals with reduced heat sensitivity or nerve-related medical conditions may not notice overheating or burns quickly enough.
Pets can also create hidden hazards. Cats and dogs may scratch, chew, or puncture the fabric, potentially damaging the internal wiring without you noticing. Even small wire breaks can increase overheating or fire risks.
Importantly, an electric blanket should never actually feel really hot – this can lead to heat stroke and be dangerous. Modern blankets are designed to provide gentle and consistent warmth rather than intense heat. A blanket that becomes excessively hot in one area may actually be showing signs of an internal fault.
All that said, when properly certified, correctly used and regularly inspected, electric blankets and throws are generally considered safe household appliances.
A quick checklist
Don’t assume your blanket is fine simply because it still heats up, especially if it’s old. A safe electric blanket should:
- display the regulatory compliance mark
- include manufacturer details and instructions
- heat evenly across the surface
- have no visible damage or exposed wiring
- include safety features such as an automatic shut-off or timer.
Make sure to check the blanket carefully before starting to use it in winter, inspect it regularly during use, store it correctly, and replace it when signs of wear begin to appear.
As long as you do the above, you should be able to use a heated blanket or throw without fear, and stay cosy during the colder months.![]()
Niusha Shafiabady, Professor in Computational Intelligence, Australian Catholic University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Wednesday, 3 June 2026
Anushka Sharma celebrates RCB's IPL win with a sweet kiss on Virat Kohli's forehead

Saturday, 30 May 2026
Messi headlines Argentina World Cup squad
Friday, 29 May 2026
Indian-American teen wins spelling bee title
Thursday, 28 May 2026
IPL 2026: Sooryavnshi, Archer power RR to Qualifier 2 with 47-run victory over SRH
Wednesday, 27 May 2026
How the Great Pyramid of Giza has survived 4,500 years of Egyptian earthquakes
Nour Wageh / Unsplash
Colin Caprani, Monash University and Scott Menegon, Swinburne University of TechnologyThe Great Pyramid of Giza in Egypt has survived more than 4,500 years. Earthquakes have repeatedly shaken the region, including the magnitude 5.8 Cairo earthquake in 1992, which dislodged some of the pyramid’s outer casing stones. Yet the main body remained essentially intact.
How has it survived so well? A new study of the pyramid’s vibrations by Egyptian geophysicist Asem Salama and colleagues provides insight into its performance during earthquakes, and identifies some interesting features.
But we should be cautious to conclude that its impressive longevity is proof of its builders’ knowledge of earthquake engineering.
What the research found
The researchers measured the pyramid’s vibrations in ambient conditions. They found that its natural frequencies – the frequencies at which it “prefers” to vibrate – are mostly between about 2.0 and 2.6 hertz (cycles per second). The surrounding soil has a much lower dominant frequency, around 0.6Hz.
Every structure has a natural rhythm. Push a child on a swing at the right moment and the motion grows; push at the wrong moment and little happens.
Buildings and monuments behave similarly. If earthquake shaking matches a structure’s natural frequency, the motion can be amplified. This is called resonance, and it can be catastrophic.
These findings suggest some behaviour that may be helpful during an earthquake, including a frequency mismatch between the pyramid and the soil. But they do not, by themselves, prove people intentionally built the pyramid to be resilient to earthquakes.
How the researchers measured it
The study used a method called horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratio analysis, or HVSR. This records tiny background motions from wind, traffic, human activity and natural ground vibration.
By comparing the horizontal and vertical components of these motions, researchers can estimate dominant frequencies in the soil and structure. In this case, instruments were placed at 37 locations in and around the pyramid, including internal passages, exterior stones and nearby soil.
The method provides useful information without damage. However, it only measures the response to small background vibrations, not the severe shaking of an earthquake.
The importance of frequency mismatch
When shaking from an earthquake happens at a frequency that matches a structure’s natural frequency, it can cause resonance. Resonance can be catastrophic.
The 1940 collapse of the Tacoma Narrows bridge in the US is often attributed to resonance during high winds. WikimediaSo the measured difference matters. If the ground and the structure vibrate at different rates, the ground is less likely to feed energy efficiently into the structure.
But this addresses only one possible mechanism of earthquake damage. There are plenty of examples of structures performing poorly in earthquakes, even though there was a frequency mismatch to the soil below.
Earthquake resilience is more complicated
Modern earthquake design does not assess resilience from one frequency comparison.
Instead, we look at a whole list of questions. How severe is the expected shaking? What ground is the structure on? How heavy and flexible is the structure? Can the structure deform and dissipate energy without sudden collapse? How serious would failure be?
The structure’s natural period or rhythm (which is related to its natural frequency) is part of that assessment. But it sits alongside many other factors.
In practice, earthquake damage depends not only on the earthquake but on the structures that receive it. Australia’s 1989 Newcastle earthquake, for example, was not huge by global standards, but many buildings fared poorly and 13 people died.
Australia’s 1989 Newcastle earthquake wasn’t huge – but it caused great damage and 13 deaths. Australian Earthquake Engineering Society, CC BYFor the Great Pyramid, the behaviour of the stonework is especially important. Ambient vibration testing measures behaviour under very small motions. During strong earthquake shaking, masonry can crack, open joints, rock, slide and lose stiffness. Each of these changes the structure’s natural period, complicating the behaviour.
Beware survivorship bias
In evaluating the pyramid’s longevity, we should also consider survivorship bias.
Famously, in the second world war, statistician Abraham Wald was asked where armour should be added to aircraft. The obvious answer was to reinforce the places where returning aircraft had the most bullet holes.
Wald argued the opposite: those aircraft had survived. The aircraft that did not return were missing from the data.
This famous diagram shows the pattern of bullet holes on returning aircraft in the second world war. Martin Grandjean / McGeddon (picture) / US Air Force (hit plot concept) / Wikimedia, CC BYAncient structures pose a similar problem. We admire ancient aqueducts, temples and pyramids because they are still here. The failed structures, poor foundations, weak details and abandoned experiments are mostly gone.
That does not diminish the Great Pyramid. It simply means looking at structures that survive today does not tell us everything about the design intentions behind them.
What the pyramid does teach us
The pyramid may not have been intentionally designed for resilience in an earthquake. But its survival is not an accident, either.
From an engineering point of view, it has many favourable features: a broad base, low centre of mass, tapering form, symmetrical plan, competent limestone foundation and massive masonry load path. It is squat, stiff and well-founded rather than tall, slender and flexible.
The safest conclusion is that the builders made excellent empirical engineering choices. Those choices may have been driven by construction experience, observation, structural necessity, or cultural intent. Their seismic benefits may be real without being the original purpose.
The Great Pyramid’s survival is not magic, and it is not proof of ancient seismic design. As evidence, this study is important and impressive, but incomplete.![]()
Colin Caprani, Associate Professor, Civil Engineering, Monash University and Scott Menegon, Senior Lecturer, Civil and Construction Engineering, Swinburne University of Technology
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


