Fire near Sacramento Railyards threatening structures, firefighters say
The fire is burning near N. 7th and N. B streets.
Sacramento Fire crews are responding to the scene.
Scene of the fire near the Sacramento Railyards.
It's unclear what started the fire.
This is a developing story.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNET
3 minutes ago
- CNET
An Expert Told Me How to Find Good Wine at a Grocery Store
Nothing beats perusing the shelves of a good, local wine shop, but when you're racing through errands, grabbing a few good bottles at the grocery store can help knock a stop off your list. Not all states allow wine sales in supermarkets, but for those that do, there's better vino hiding near the deli counter than you might think. To find out what's worth tossing in the cart, we asked Jade Palmer, wine manager at Hop City Craft Beer and Wine in Atlanta. "You can absolutely find good wine at the grocery store," Palmer says. Many large producers offer wallet-friendly options without compromising on quality. "Their production is big, but it's often done well," she adds. The key here is knowing what to look for in "over-delivery," that is, wines that punch above their price class in terms of quality. Palmer offers several tips and tricks for finding wines at the grocery store that are more than worthy of your dinner table. (Oh, and if you're wondering if you should pop that open red wine in the fridge to keep it fresh, we asked an expert to weigh in.) 1. Know which wines to avoid Knowing what to avoid is as important as knowing what to look for. Sutter Home While grocery stores and supermarket chains typically have plenty of good wines stocked on their shelves, half the battle can be separating the wheat from the chaff (the grapes from the pits?) where wines are concerned. Palmer suggests a few keywords to avoid when bottle shopping. "I would avoid any wine that has the word 'sweet' in the title," she says, "which typically means the wine is artificially sweetened to make it more palatable." If you prefer a wine with a little sweetness to it, look for the words "off-dry" instead, which better reveals a classically made wine that intentionally has a little residual sugar left following fermentation. Also, wines with other "natural flavors" or those that have been bourbon-barrel aged are sometimes just tricks that mask the wine's honest flavor. "That's why we drink wine," says Palmer, "because we want to taste the flavor of the grapes." (Leave the bourbon barrels for the bourbon.) 2. Skip the mass-market brands Brands with big marketing budgets tend to put their money there rather than in winemaking. Barefoot Wines Sorry, Barefoot, Yellowtail and, yes, even Josh. They may claim the most shelf space in grocery retailers, but you're going to want to dig deeper for better wines. "The production on those has gotten so big that I don't think that the quality is there," says Palmer. "I understand the price point is attractive, but when we're looking for value wine, we're also looking for quality, too," she says. In general, be dubious of any wine that has been excessively marketed to you. (Throwing Whispering Angel under the bus here, too, while we're at it.) Read more: Budget Bottles: An Expert Reveals How to Find the Best Value Wine Brands that have big marketing budgets tend to put their money there rather than in winemaking. Here's where you're likely to find wines with a pronounced oak flavor that comes not from oak aging, but from oak chips stirred into the wine to shortcut the process. (Yes, that's a thing.) 3. Certain regions are known for value: Portugal, Chile, Washington Keep some value-driven wine regions such as Portugal, Spain and Washington state in your back pocket. Seven Hills Among wine pros, certain regions are well known for keeping quality up and prices down, such as the Iberian peninsula. "Portugal is huge for that," says Palmer. "Vinho Verde is such an approachable style of wine and you can find it easily for under $15." Spain also has some great finds: "You can find some really good Tempranillo-based blends that aren't necessarily Rioja. You can find some good Garnacha-based blends as well," she says. Spain also offers a less expensive alternative to Champagne. "Cava is just a good, traditional-method sparkling wine that you can frequently get for under $25." Read more: Best Wine Apps to Help You Pick a Perfect Bottle Stateside, Washington state wines, red and whites both, are gaining traction for their value, according to Palmer. And if you love Napa Cab but hate the sticker shock, "Paso Robles is a great place for Cab," says Palmer. "You can still get the richness, the fullness, and all of the layers of flavor that you could get from Napa and Sonoma, but at a more value-driven price point." These are US regions that are distributing widely enough that at least a few should land in your local grocery store. Also, consider South America. "Argentina and Chile are also great places to find value," says Palmer. "You can find incredible Malbec for under 20 bucks -- a grocery store hero -- and you can find really good Sauvignon Blanc, especially from Chile, and they deliver great value." 4. New Zealand Sauvignon blanc is a safe bet Every supermarket that carries wine should have at least a few New Zealand Sauvignon blancs to choose from. FoxTrot Speaking of Sauvignon blanc, if you haven't already hopped on the New Zealand Sauvignon blanc bandwagon, hop on. If you're already there, stay on. It's one of the most popular wine styles sold in the US, grocery stores and bottle shops both, and for good reason. "It's a safe bet," says Palmer. "It's pretty straightforward. I know what I'm getting when I pick up a $15 bottle, and you can get all of the great fruity, grassy aromas that you expect." 5. Don't be afraid to take a chance Finding great new wine requires taking chances. IL21/Getty On the opposite score, however, there are so many grapes worldwide, and we are collectively drinking so few of them, and you might find a great deal if you're willing to try something new. Even the largest grocery retailers have some deep cuts in their selection. "I have bottles at my shop, where people are like, 'OK, why is this wine $12? I've never heard of this before,'" says Palmer. "I think it's a low-risk, high-reward situation," she says. "People should venture out a little bit and try something different, like a Picpoul, or a Bonarda." Plus, when you find something unusual and love it, you get to play the tastemaker among your friends or family. The same goes for countries or states you maybe didn't know made wine. Uruguay, for example, has started to export more and more wine to the US in the past 10 years, and there are killer, Tannat-based reds and refreshing Albariños available for less than $15. Look for them tucked among the more famous South American wines. 6. Two big names to look for: Louis Jadot and Mary Taylor Louis Jadot's signature old-world labels should be easy to spot on a grocery store shelf. Louis Jadot Louis Jadot wines have a French, classic-looking label you can find in many large retailers, but it's not quite the same as the mass-market brands you should be avoiding, and that has to do with what's called the negociant system. "Negociants such as Louis Jadot buy grapes and make wine, so they are not a grower, necessarily," says Palmer. "It's a class of producer that allows people to enter the market without having vineyard land," she says, a much more common practice in winemaking than people realize. Not needing to own real estate is one way for winemakers to keep their costs down, and pass savings to the consumer. Mary Taylor wines can be found easily and punch above their price. Mary Taylor Similarly, Mary Taylor's line of wines, available in many retailers, is a hand-picked collection of European wines that offer great value. "Her wines are so accessible, and she does a great job of highlighting producers that are using some relatively unknown grape varieties," says Palmer, another vote for unfamiliar grapes. "The price is crazy, because they're all under $20, and the brand exposes consumers to a region that they would have never tried wine from."
Fast Company
3 minutes ago
- Fast Company
Why sparing someone's feelings can undermine trust
07-30-2025 WORK LIFE The surprising power of being direct BY Jessica Wilen, Ph.D is an executive coach and the founder of A Cup of Ambition, a popular newsletter about working parenthood, the psychology of work, and women in leadership. Leaders known for their emotional intelligence often pride themselves on cultivating trust, psychological safety, and genuine connection with their teams. These are essential assets in any leadership toolkit, particularly in environments that rely on collaboration, creativity, or mission alignment. But inevitably, there are moments when these strengths—empathy, warmth, patience—need to be supplemented with something sharper: clarity, candor, and the ability to speak directly when the situation calls for it. If you lead with empathy, you may already be adept at sensing how people are feeling and anticipating the downstream consequences of your words. But in certain moments, the harder leadership move isn't to hold space. It's to draw a line and provide someone a necessary reality check. Conversations like these often feel uncomfortable, but they ultimately serve the integrity of your team, your organization, or the individual themselves. Confusing directness with harm Many conscientious leaders hesitate to be fully direct because they conflate honesty with harshness. The fear is understandable: no one wants to be perceived as punitive, cold, or unfeeling. So we delay giving feedback—hedging our language and prioritizing emotional comfort over organizational clarity. But avoiding the truth rarely protects people—it usually disorients them. What erodes trust over time isn't directness; it's the absence of it. It's the vague feedback that leaves a team member guessing. The unspoken performance concern that festers behind the scenes. The dissonance between what's said in public and what's whispered in private. Said differently: kindness without clarity is often just misplaced anxiety. Directness as a form of respect When a performance issue arises or a behavioral pattern needs to shift, it's worth asking: What does this person deserve to know? Assuming your intent is constructive—not punitive—being direct is a sign of respect. It assumes the person is capable of hearing hard truths and of responding thoughtfully. It also models the type of culture most high-performing teams want: one where feedback is not weaponized, but neither is it avoided. A few ways to ground a direct conversation in professionalism and respect: 'I want to have a conversation that's candid, because I take your role and your contribution seriously.' 'This might be hard to hear, but I trust your ability to receive it—and respond in a way that reflects your strengths.' 'I'm raising this because I value your place on the team and I want to make sure we're aligned moving forward.' This kind of framing can't mask a poorly handled message—but it can open the door to a conversation grounded in mutual respect, rather than defensiveness. Delivering clarity without cruelty A direct conversation should be just that—direct. That means no extended preamble, no hedging language, no passive-aggressive tone. Say what you need to say plainly, and without dramatizing or editorializing. Consider this structure: Signal the conversation's purpose: 'I want to give you some candid feedback about how you're showing up on the team.' Name the issue specifically: 'You've missed several key deadlines this quarter, and it's created ripple effects for others.' Explain the impact: 'People are waiting on your contributions, and timelines are slipping. It's affecting morale.' Invite dialogue: 'I'm curious how you're seeing this—do you agree with that assessment?' Identify a clear next step or standard: 'We need to see improvement over the next month, and I'm happy to support you—but the expectations are non-negotiable.' This approach allows you to balance accountability with collaboration. It removes ambiguity while still inviting the other person into the solution. Anticipate discomfort—but don't personalize it Even a well-structured conversation may evoke a strong emotional response: frustration, embarrassment, disappointment, defensiveness. This is part of the process—not an indication you've mishandled the exchange. Resist the urge to over-explain, soften your message mid-stream, or rush in to repair the other person's reaction. If the message is true and necessary, the short-term discomfort is a feature of the process, not a bug. One helpful internal reframe: This may feel hard, but that doesn't mean it's harmful. It means it matters. Of course, how you follow up also matters. If the person is emotionally reactive or distressed, you can acknowledge the emotion without retreating from the content. A simple 'I know that was a lot to take in—let's revisit this in a few days after you've had a chance to reflect' can provide space for integration while still maintaining accountability. Clarity shapes culture Handled well, these conversations aren't just about individual performance—they shape your organizational culture. When feedback is delayed, filtered, or inconsistently delivered, teams become unclear about what's expected, what's tolerated, and what success actually looks like. Conversely, when leaders are willing to say the hard thing—with steadiness and respect—it signals that performance standards matter, and that team dynamics are worth protecting. Direct communication becomes an act of stewardship: protecting the integrity of the organization, safeguarding the cohesion of the team, and supporting the growth of the individuals within it. Final thought Some people are naturally more direct; others more sensitive to tone and relationship dynamics. But having hard conversations isn't about personality—it's about discipline. It's a practice. And like any other leadership muscle, it gets stronger with use. For the empathic leader, the goal isn't to stop caring or to suppress emotional intelligence. It's to channel those qualities into a leadership style that's both principled and effective. The best leaders don't choose between empathy and clarity. They hold both. And they have the courage to speak candidly—even when it's uncomfortable—because they understand that clarity is what allows empathy to be sustainable over time. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Jessica Wilen, Ph.D., is a trusted partner to top-tier leaders and organizations looking to elevate their leadership, strengthen teams and cultivate sustainable, high-performing cultures. As a member of the Fast Company Creator Network and author of the popular newsletter, A Cup of Ambition, Jessica writes about working parenthood, the psychology of work, and women in leadership. More
New York Times
5 minutes ago
- New York Times
The Biggest Unanswered Questions About the Reagan Airport Crash
On Wednesday, the National Transportation Safety Board will convene for three days of hearings into the Jan. 29 midair collision near Ronald Reagan National Airport outside Washington, D.C., that killed 67 people. The N.T.S.B., an independent government agency that investigates transportation accidents, has already issued its initial findings on the facts and timeline of the episode, in which an Army Black Hawk helicopter crashed into an American Airlines commercial flight above the Potomac River. The board's final report, which will identify the cause of the accident, is not expected until next year. But this week's hearings, which will include sworn testimony from witnesses to the accident and parties to the crash, including the Army, will provide the clearest picture yet of what went wrong. Here are some of the key questions that have yet to be answered: Why was the Black Hawk flying too high? According to the N.T.S.B.'s preliminary report, the pilot flying the Black Hawk, Capt. Rebecca M. Lobach, was told to descend to 200 feet, which was the mandated altitude for helicopters on the route. Yet she evidently had difficulty maintaining that level, putting the Black Hawk in a position where it crashed into the plane at roughly 300 feet. Was Captain Lobach having trouble controlling the helicopter? Or were her altimeters — instruments that measure altitude — not working properly? What was the conversation aboard the Black Hawk? The N.T.S.B. has provided a concise and paraphrased version of what it deems to be key moments from the cockpit voice recordings aboard the Army helicopter, which was carrying a crew of three: Captain Lobach; Chief Warrant Officer 2 Andrew Loyd Eaves, her instructor on the training flight; and Staff Sgt. Ryan Austin O'Hara, the crew chief, or technical expert. What we don't know is whether the crew members had any idea how close they were to a catastrophic event, or how concerned they were about either their altitude or a potential problem with their altimeters, which were providing differing readings to Captain Lobach and Mr. Eaves. How concerned did they seem about these factors? Is there any evidence of a last-minute attempt to change altitude or course? What was going on in the air traffic control tower at National Airport? Investigators with the N.T.S.B. have found that five air traffic controllers were working various positions at the time of the crash. However, one of the positions had been combined with another to handle both helicopter and airplane traffic hours earlier. The Federal Aviation Administration, which runs the National Airport control tower, has described the staffing that night as 'not normal for the time of day and volume of traffic.' The helicopter position is not typically combined with another position until 9:30 in the evening, people briefed on the practice have told The New York Times, but a supervisor in the tower that night allowed a controller to leave early, prompting the early combination, those people have also said. When, precisely, did that person leave and why? And was the controller who was left performing both positions feeling fatigued or overtaxed by the double duty? How big of a problem was Runway 33? While the American Airlines flight was in its final stretch, the control tower asked its pilots to pivot their course from Runway 1, National Airport's most commonly used arrivals runway, to an alternative, Runway 33. The pilots agreed, putting the airplane on a landing trajectory that risked placing it dangerously close to approaching helicopter traffic. The N.T.S.B. has said that Runway 33 is used for flight arrivals only 4 percent of the time. Austin Roth, a retired Army Black Hawk instructor pilot who flew those routes many times, said in an interview with The Times that he doubted that the Army crew would have been prepared for a Runway 33 landing, given that runway's rare use. Considering all those factors, should the American Airlines crew have refused to land on Runway 33? Was the Black Hawk crew aware of the Runway 33 traffic path it should have been watching? More broadly, why did the F.A.A. allow helicopters to even operate on the route the Black Hawk was flying, when Runway 33 was in use for a landing? Would a real-time aircraft location broadcasting system have made a difference? Army officials sought, and received, permission to fly helicopters in the National Airport airspace without using a system known as Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast Out, or ADS-B Out. Concerned lawmakers, including Senator Ted Cruz, the Texas Republican who is the chairman of the Senate's transportation committee, have flagged the lack of ADS-B as a potentially key contributor to the crash, but the Army has insisted it would not have helped. Is there evidence suggesting that the system would, in fact, have played a preventive role? An affirmative answer could have broad implications for the Army unit that operates flights in the area in the future.
