Imagine that you're looking at your company-issued smartphone and you notice an e-mail from Linkedln:“These companies are looking for candidate like you!” You aren't necessarily searching for a job, but you're always open to opportunities, so out of curiosity, you click on the link. A few minutes later your boss appears at your desk. “We've noticed that you're spending more time on Linkedln lately, so I wanted to talk with you about your career and whether you're happy here,” she says Uh-oh.

    It's an awkward scene. Attrition(损耗) has always been expensive for companies, but in many industries the cost of losing good workers is rising, owing to tight labor markets. Thus companies are making greater efforts to predict which workers are at high risk of leaving so that managers can try to stop them. Methods range from electronic monitor to sophisticated analyses of employees' social media lives.

    Some of this work may be a reason to let employees to quit. In general, people leave their jobs because they don't like their boss, don't see opportunities for promotion or growth, or are offered a higher pay; these reasons have held steady for years.

    New research conducted by CEB, a Washington-based technology company, looks not just at why workers quit but also at when. “We've learned that what really affects people is their sense of how they're doing compared with other people in their peer group, or with where they thought they would be at a certain point in life, says Brian Kropp, who heads CEB's HR practice. “We've learned to focus on moments that allow people to make these comparisons.”

    Technology also provides clues about which star employees might be eyeing the exit. Companies can tell whether employees using work computers or phones are spending time on (or even just opening e-mails from) career websites, and research shows that more firms are paying attention to these things. Large companies have also begun tracking badge swipes(浏览痕迹)—employees' use of an ID to enter and exit the building or the parking garage—to identify patterns that suggest a worker may be interviewing for a job.

根据短文内容，选择最佳答案，并将选定答案的字母标号填在题前括号内。

    Four years ago, we asked ourselves: what if we could create a shopping experience with no waiting in lines and no checkout? Or could we create a physical store where customers could simply take what they want and go? Our answer to those questions is Amazon Go, where you could experience the idea of "just walk out shopping".

    Amazon Go is a new kind of store with no checkout required. We created the world's most advanced shopping technology, so you never have to wait in line. With our "just walk out shopping" experience, simply use the Amazon Go app to enter the store, take the products you want, and go! No lines, no checkout.

    Our checkout-free shopping experience is made possible by the same types of technologies used in self-driving cars: computer vision, sensor fusion, and deep learning. Our “ just walk out technology ” automatically detects when products are taken from or returned to the shelves and keeps track of them in your virtual cart. When you have done shopping, you can just leave the store. Shortly after, we'll charge your Amazon account and send you a receipt.

    We offer delicious ready-to-eat breakfast, lunch, dinner, and snack options made fresh every day by our on-site chefs and favorite local kitchens and bakeries. Our selection of food stuff ranges from bread and milk to cheeses and locally made chocolates. You'll find well-known brands we love, plus special finds we're excited to introduce to customers. For a quick home-cooked dinner, pick up one of our chef-designed Amazon Meal Kits, and you can make a meal for two in about 30 minutes.

    Our 1,800-square-foot shopping space is conveniently compact, so busy customers can get in and out fast. It is located at 2131, 7th Ave, Seattle, WA, on the corner of 7th Avenue and Blanchard Street. All you need is an Amazon account, a supported smart phone, and the free Amazon Go app.

    Amazon Go is currently only open to Amazon employees in our testing program, and will be open to the public soon.

    Larger brain size linked to longer life in deer. The size of a female animals' brain may determine whether they live longer and have more healthy later generations, according to new research led by the University of Cambridge.

    The study, published in the Royal Society Open Science journal, shows that female red deer with larger brains live longer and have more surviving later generations than those with smaller brains. Brain size is heritable and is passed down through the generations. This is the first extensive study of individual differences in brain size in wild mammals and draws on data comparing seven generations of deer.

    Across species of mammals, brain size varies widely. This is thought to be a consequence of specific differences in the benefits and costs of a larger brain. Mammals with larger brains may, for example, have greater abilities that enable them to adapt better to environmental changes or they may have longer lifespans. But there may also be disadvantages: for instance, larger brains require more energy, so individuals that possess them may show reduced ability to give birth to young babies.

    The researchers, based at the University of Cambridge's Zoology Department and Edinburgh University's Institute of Evolutionary Biology, wanted to test if they could find more direct genetic or non-genetic evidence of the costs and benefits of large brain size by comparing the longevity(长寿) and survival of individuals of the same species with different sized brains. Using the skulls of 1,314 wild red deer whose life histories and breeding success had been monitored in the course of a long-term study on the Isle of Rum, they found that females with larger endocranial volumes(脑腔容量) lived longer and produced more surviving offspring in the course of their lives.

    Lead author Dr Corina Logan, a Gates Cambridge Scholar, says, "The reasons for the association between brain size and longevity are not known, but other studies have suggested that larger brains are a consequence of the longer-lived species having longer developmental periods in which the brain can grow. These predictions were generated from cross-species correlations; however, testing such hypotheses requires investigations at the within-species level, which is what we did. "

    Dr Logan adds, "We found that some of the cross-species predictions about brain size held for female red deer, and that none of the predictions were supported in male red deer. This indicates that each sex likely experiences its own set of trade-offs(权衡,协调) with regard to brain size. "The study also showed that females' relative endocranial volume is smaller than that of males, despite evidence of selection for larger brains in females.

    Professor Tim Clutton Brock, who set up the Rum Red Deer study with Fiona Guinness in 1972 and started the work on brain size, points out, "The reason that this kind of study has not been conducted before is that it requires long term records of a large number of individuals across multiple generations and data of this kind are still rare in wild animals."

    It seems that you can hardly go to any bookstore without encountering Charles Dickens. From Oliver Twist to A Tale of Two Cites, Dickens' works still enjoy great popularity today and are placed on notable shelves.

    As someone who teaches Dickens, the question of why we still read him is often on my min. Nearly 10 years ago, I told my students that Dickens, works started crazes in Victorian readers. Then a hand shot up in the middle of the room. “But why should we still read his stuff?” A student asked. I was speechless because I had never considered the question myself. The answer I gave was only acceptable. “Because he teaches you how to think,” I said.

    The question annoyed me for years, and for years I told myself answers, but never with complete satisfaction. We read Dickens because he not only was a man of his own times, but also is a man for our times. We read Dickens because his exploration of the human mind is deep. We read Dickens because we can learn from the experiences of his characters. These are all wonderful reasons, but not exactly the reasons why I read Dickens.

    My search for an answer continued in vain, until one day a text message came from a student of mine. “We still read Dickens' novels,” she wrote, “because they tell us why we are what we are.” Simple as it was, that was the explanation I had thought for years.

    Like most people, I think I knew who I was without knowing it. I was Oliver Twist, always wanting and asking for more. I was Nicholas Nickleby, convinced that my father was watching me from beyond the grave. I was Pip, in love with someone far beyond my reach. I was all of these characters, and I began to understand more about why I was who I was because Dickens had told me so much about human beings. Dickens shines a light on who we are during the best and worst of times. That's why we still need to read him today.

    The Boy Made It!

    One Sunday, Nicholas, a teenager, went skiing at Sugarloaf Mountain in Maine. In the early afternoon, when he was planning to go home, a fierce snowstorm swept into the area. Unable to see far, he accidentally turned off the path. Before he knew it, Nicholas was lost, all alone! He didn't have food, water, a phone, or other supplies. He was getting colder by the minute.

    Nicholas had no idea where he was. He tried not to panic. He thought about all the survival shows he had watched on TV. It was time to put the tips he had learned to use.

    He decided to stop skiing. There was a better chance of someone finding him if he stayed out. The first thing he did was to find shelter from the freezing wind and snow. If he didn't, his body temperature would get very low, which could quickly kill him.

    Using his skis, Nicholas built a snow cave. He gathered a huge mass of snow and dug out a hole in the middle. Then he piled branches on top of himself, like a blanket, to stay as warm as he could. By that evening, Nicholas was really hungry. He ate snow and drank water from a nearby stream so that his body wouldn't lose too much water. Not knowing how much longer he could last, Nicholas did the only thing he could—he huddled(蜷缩) in his cave and slept.

    The next day, Nicholas went out to look for help, but he couldn't find anyone. He followed his tracks and returned to the snow cave, because without shelter, he could die that night. On Tuesday, Nicholas went out to find help. He had walked for about a mile when a volunteer searcher found him. After two days stuck in the snow, Nicholas was saved.

    Nicholas might not have survived this snowstorm had it not been for TV. He had often watched Grylls' survival show. Man vs. Wild. That's where he learned the tips that saved his life. In each episode(一期节目)of Man vs. Wild, Grylls is abandoned in a wild area and has to find his way out.

    When Grylls heard about Nicholas' amazing deeds, he was super impressed that Nicholas had made it since he knew better than anyone how hard Nicholas had to work to stay alive.

    It's shocking that countless species become extinct every year and such extinction means forever. To change the situation, scientists are now on their way to bringing back extinct species.

    DNA is the chemical that carries the structure of a living thing, which is needed by researchers to bring back a species. Dinosaurs have been gone too long for any of their DNA to remain in fossils. However it seems possible to bring back more recently extinct species such as Ice Age animal, the woolly mammoth. In 2015, a team of Spanish and French scientists re-created the Pyrenean ibex, which had gone extinct three years earlier. The new animal didn't survive long, but scientific advances should improve the success rate. In January, Australian scientists announced that they were trying to restore the brooding frog.

    That we can bring species back doesn't mean that we should. There may be benefits to bring back a species. But there's no way to know how it will turn out. For example, would a passenger pigeon fit into its old habitat? Or might it crowd out existing species?

    Environmentalists worry that our ability to bring species back might cut down support for the hard work of traditional conservation. Why bother to preserve a wild life habitat or fight poachers(偷猎者) if we know we can make up for our mistakes?

    But those extinctions are our mistakes to correct. As environmentalist Stewart Brand put it, "Humans have the ability to repair some of that damage."

    We would do well to remember the lesson of Jurassic Park: Continue with caution.