(Bloomberg) — Google showed off a pair of new Pixel phones, a tablet computer and a speaker with a screen in a deluge of new products aimed at competing with the latest gadgets from big technology rivals.

The Pixel 3 and Pixel 3 XL phones offer significant upgrades to prior models by adding a nearly edge-to-edge screen on the larger model, more display area on both phones, faster processors and an improved camera. Alphabet Inc.’s Google is banking on the latest versions, viewed as rivals to premium smartphones from Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., to generate meaningful sales — something that has eluded Google’s phones, despite positive user reviews.

Google sold about 4 million phones in 2017, twice as many as a year earlier, according to research firm IDC. By comparison, Apple sold about 217 million iPhones last year. Alphabet doesn’t break out hardware sales numbers, but the revenue from the phones and products such as its Home smart speaker are tucked into the company’s other revenues segment, which includes cloud sales and content purchases. Alphabet generated $4.4 billion in the second quarter from this category, up 37 percent from a year earlier.

While the phones haven’t become mass-market hits, Google has seen more success with its home products. The company on Tuesday introduced the Google Home Hub, a smart speaker with a display. It’s essentially a speaker with a 7-inch tablet screen on the front that runs a variant of the Google Assistant Smart Display software launched earlier this year. Users will be able to ask the device to pull up and display videos, visual weather information, and traffic data.

The new speaker will compete with Amazon.com Inc.’s Echo Show, with one notable omission: a video camera. The device, priced at $149, won’t be a video-chatting hub like Amazon’s product and Facebook’s new Portal speaker, unveiled Monday.

Despite Amazon’s dominance in the category, analysts are bullish on Google’s long-term prospects for smart speakers. Loup Ventures estimates that while Amazon will have 52 percent of the market this year and Google will reach 28 percent, Google will surpass Amazon by 2021 with 48 percent versus 37 percent. The firm estimates that Google will grab half the market by 2025 with an overall installed base of 150 million units.

Rick Osterloh, who runs Google’s hardware efforts and introduced the new smartphone models, is banking on the latest Pixels to make a dent in the market. The phones are launching in the weeks following the debuts of Samsung’s Galaxy Note 9 and Apple’s iPhone XS and XS Max, and ahead of the iPhone XR. Despite similar functionality, Google’s products are priced below the competition: the smaller model with a 5.5-inch screen starts at $799, while the larger model with a 6.3-inch screen is priced starting at $899.

While Google’s phones have larger screens, they do look similar to their predecessors except for fully glass backs. They’ll come in three colors: black, white and pink.

Google spent the bulk of the phone portion of the event talking about the devices’ new camera. Executives even lined up photos taken with Apple’s new iPhone XS with ones shot on the Pixel 3 to bolster Google’s claims that it’s got the best phone camera on the market. The phone has a custom chip designed to make photos look better, Google said. The new phones’ camera can also be used to search for items online by simply taking a picture of them.

Almost all the technical details of the phones had been leaked before the event, but Google did unveil some clever new software features. One of them transcribes voicemails in real time, so users can decide whether to pick up the call or keep ignoring it. The phones also offer wireless charging.

Beyond phones and speakers, Google also introduced a convertible tablet, called the Pixel Slate, which runs on the Chrome OS software. The device costs $599, or $798 including the optional attachable keyboard. A pen for use on the touchscreen costs $99. Pixel Slate will go on sale in the U.S. and Canada later this year, Google said.

(Bloomberg)—U.S. equities closed up from the lows of the day after a late rally in large technology stocks helped to propel the Nasdaq 100 higher in what was the biggest reversal for the index since April.

The S&P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average ended in negative territory. Financial markets remained volatile on bets that the trade truce between China and the U.S. won’t last after the arrest of Huawei’s chief financial officer. Bank shares in the S&P 500 fell as much as 3.9 percent before closing down 1.4 percent, as Treasury yields slid to the lowest since August.

Helping to ease anxiety were comments from two regional Federal Reserve presidents urging policy caution from the U.S. central bank amid mounting economic uncertainties and recent volatility in financial markets.

“The biggest qualm is the trade war escalating and this is haunting the markets,” said Naeem Aslam, chief market analyst at Think Markets U.K. in London, in an email. “It is arduous to find bulls in the market and it seems to me that this game is about to become uglier.”

Oil continued to be a drag on financial markets, with West Texas Intermediate back to $51 a barrel as OPEC ministers seek a deal to cut output. Energy producers in the S&P 500 sank more than 3 percent, and emerging-market equities plunged.

Traders pointed to a spate of other catalysts for the renewed risk-off tone that’s gripping financial markets. Bank of Japan Governor Haruhiko Kuroda said economic risks from abroad could be severe, and the Fed’s Beige Book report showed fading optimism over growth prospects at U.S. firms even as most districts continued to report a modest expansion. The pound drifted as U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May searched for a compromise to avoid a crushing defeat on her Brexit deal in a key vote in Parliament next week.

“There are so many forces weighing against markets right now, whether it’s the China slowdown, weak European data, Fed hikes, uncertainty around trade and now Brexit as well,” Bilal Hafeez, head of fixed-income research for EMEA at Nomura, told Bloomberg TV. “We really need to see some stabilization in any of those factors to see markets stabilize now.”

Whether or not it triggered the slide, Canada’s arrest of the Huawei CFO and reports it may extradite her to the U.S. are a blow to already fragile sentiment, just days after an apparent breakthrough on trade between America and China. The start of the futures session was marred by a sudden and unexpected plunge that sent a shock wave across equity markets.

“The arrest of the Huawei Technologies CFO gives no confidence that anything the administration came back with after Saturday night’s dinner could possibly be positive,” said Bob Iaccino, chief market strategist at Chicago-based Path Trading Partners, in an email. “This is a huge negative.”

Some of the key events investors will be focused on this week:

OPEC ministers meet again in Vienna Friday. Friday brings the U.S. monthly employment report for November. China November trade data are due on Saturday.And here are the main moves in markets:

Stocks

The S&P 500 fell 0.2 percent as of 4:09 p.m. in New York, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average slumped 0.3 percent and the Nasdaq Composite Index rose 0.4 percent and the Nasdaq 100 climbed 0.6 percent. The Stoxx Europe 600 sank 3.1 percent. The MSCI Emerging Market Index slumped 2.3 percent. The MSCI Asia Pacific Index fell 1.8 percent.

Currencies

The Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index fell 0.3 percent. The euro rose 0.3 percent to $1.1380. The British pound gained 0.4 percent to $1.2783. The Japanese yen strengthened 0.6 percent to 112.50 per dollar.

Bonds

The yield on benchmark 10-year Treasuries fell four basis points to 2.87 percent. The three-year note yield dropped four basis points to 2.76 percent as the yield on the five-year note eased four basis points to 2.74 percent. Germany’s 10-year yield fell four basis points to 0.24 percent.

Commodities

West Texas Intermediate crude slumped 2.3 percent to $51.68 a barrel. Gold edged 0.1 percent higher to $1,238.27 an ounce. LME copper fell 1.7 percent to $6,070 per metric ton, the third straight decline.

Doris Kearns Goodwin lives surrounded by American history. Her home in Concord, Mass., is minutes from the site of one of the first battles of the American Revolution. The house itself, cool on a day that broke heat records in nearby Boston, is full of history too. What was once a three-car garage is now a library. Abraham Lincoln books are in there, and Franklin Roosevelt is nearby. The section on Theodore Roosevelt is upstairs. A small room with exercise bikes is devoted to memoir. Fiction has its place too. And at the end of one hallway, there’s a section that might surprise visitors to the home of one of the nation’s most famous historians: business and psychology books on leadership.

That section is new. These–and the papers in dozens of colorful three-ring binders in a nearby room–were research materials for Goodwin’s new book, Leadership: In Turbulent Times, out Sept. 18. Leadership guru is a role Goodwin, 75, has filled informally for years, as a frequent speaker on lessons gleaned from the Presidents who have been the subjects of her award-winning biographies. In her new book, Goodwin has taken “her guys”–Lincoln, both Roosevelts and Lyndon B. Johnson–and crafted elements of their parallel stories into a comparatively slim volume (read: nearly 500 pages counting the bibliography) for history buffs and C-suiters alike.

Goodwin says the writing experience reminded her of graduate school, when she and her friends would talk about how their studies might offer a path forward in their own lives. It felt like “coming full circle,” she says–and allowed her to feel like she was paying something of a debt to the leaders she has chronicled over the years.

“Each time I finished a project, I had to move that guy’s books to another room, and I always felt I was vaguely betraying him,” Goodwin says. “This time I could keep them all where they were.”

In Leadership, each President gets his start, faces obstacles personal and national, and achieves success. Some moments stand out: Teddy Roosevelt’s handling of a strike or FDR’s road map for the first 100 days, which became a staple for future Presidents’ first terms. From Lincoln comes the idea of writing “hot” letters, never to be sent, to get out one’s anger. It’s hard to imagine Goodwin angry–she won’t let TIME take an unsmiling photo of her–but she says anyone can use that tip. And a coda to LBJ’s story, about his lack of leadership on Vietnam, neatly highlights the stakes of her lessons.

Goodwin has a close-up perspective on Johnson, having helped with his memoirs following a fellowship in his White House, but that’s not the only reason Leadership is personal in ways a presidential biography can’t be. The subject demands to be related to one’s own life, and Goodwin isn’t immune. Lincoln’s praise for his team was a reminder to thank her own helpers even more. Each of the four Presidents she profiles had to return from at least one big setback. Similarly, she faced plagiarism accusations in the early 2000s, which she has attributed to mistakes caused by a faulty note-taking system. Goodwin retreated briefly from public life before returning with Team of Rivals, the best-selling Lincoln biography that inspired both Steven Spielberg (it’s a basis for Lincoln) and then Senator Barack Obama, who called her to discuss it. There was also an overlay of personal sadness; Goodwin was writing an epilogue about the Presidents’ deaths just as her husband, JFK and Johnson adviser Richard N. Goodwin, faced the final stages of cancer. He died in May, and she says it was helpful to reflect at that time on what it meant to leave a legacy.

“Knowing that he felt that he had an extraordinary life and that the world understood that too,” she says, “was just such a comforting factor.”

Over lunch at a Concord Inn that’s older than the United States, Goodwin returns to a favorite story about FDR: in 1940, he set a target for U.S. warplane production that seemed impossible to hit–and yet that goal would “ignite the imagination” of the aviation industry. The moral is that leadership involves presenting others with a vision of what they might achieve.

The new book also means to offer an instructive new perspective. Its most urgent lesson isn’t found in any specific example of how a great man faced down a great problem. Rather, she says, it’s in seeing just how massive their problems were.

“This has become more apparent over the past couple of years: we’re going to ignore history at our own peril,” she says. “I’d like to think it would give people reassurance to know that if you think we’re in the worst of times right now, it isn’t the worst.”

Yes, these times qualify as turbulent, she says, although she didn’t know how much when she started the book about five years ago. Beyond any specific failures of leadership in its capital, she sees the U.S. as overwhelmed by polarization. The four examples she uses may help citizens recognize good leadership when they see it. But even more, she hopes citizens will remember that greater obstacles have been overcome before.

“It’s like being in war so long, you don’t know what peace is like,” Goodwin says. “We’ve been at each other’s throats so long in Washington. To know and remember what bipartisanship is like, that’s what I want people to see. We had it.”

That possibility of a better world isn’t limited to politics. All of her subjects earn her praise for taking time to retreat, reflect and pause amid crisis. If you think work emails arriving in your inbox during vacation makes that impossible, think again.

“If Lincoln during the Civil War can go to the theater a hundred times, and if FDR during World War II can have a cocktail hour every night where you can only talk about books you’ve read and gossip, and if Teddy Roosevelt can take two hours every afternoon to exercise,” she says, none of us has an excuse. “We just keep thinking our time is more complicated. It is because we’ve made it so.”

Goodwin is pretty good at pausing too. When she watches her beloved Boston Red Sox, she says, she thinks about only baseball, and she has made a ritual of eating out with friends multiple times a week (the historic tavern where we had lunch is their Thursday spot). She’s big into mysteries. And she makes time for family and neighbors. One of her sons lives in Concord with his family, and their town is the kind where people stop to say hello–including five separate times during our postlunch visit to the Concord Bookshop.

She’s also taking a slower-paced approach to the question of what comes next. She wants to finish the book her husband was writing when he died, which she describes as a “love letter to the idea of America.” Several film projects based on her work are in progress–Spielberg has moved on to her Teddy Roosevelt/William Howard Taft book, and a miniseries drawn from her FDR work may happen, too–and she has started a production company with her manager. She’s not sure she wants to spend another decade on a biography. If the right person came along, maybe. But that would mean moving her books again, and that doesn’t feel right, not yet.

“It’s still just too close to this one,” she says. “I’d feel like I was betraying these guys before they’d even come back to life.”

This appears in the September 17, 2018 issue of TIME.

(Bloomberg) — A flaw in Epic Games Inc.’s Fortnite put the accounts of millions of users at risk of malicious attack, researchers from Check Point Software Technologies Ltd. said in a report Wednesday. The vulnerability in the authentication process allowed hackers to send a link to the player that, once clicked, gave access to the user account where attackers could buy virtual currency and purchase game equipment that could then be transferred to a separate account and resold. The hacker also could gain access to conversations held by the player and his friends, which could be used to exploit the account owner, often children under 18.

”We were made aware of the vulnerabilities and they were soon addressed,” an emailed statement from Epic Games said. ”We encourage players to protect their accounts by not re-using passwords and using strong passwords, and not sharing account information with others.” It was unclear whether the vulnerability discovered by Check Point was ever exploited.

As of June, Fortnite had been played by 125 million people, and was on track to generate $2 billion for Epic Games. The game revolves around a cartoonish, last-character-standing battle where players fight for weapons and resources. It’s free to play and available on multiple devices from mobile phones to video-game consoles.

”Needless to say, that along with this massive invasion of privacy, the financial risks and potential for fraud is vast,” Check Point said of the discovered flaw. The company’s head of products vulnerability research, Oded Vanunu, said his six- and nine-year-old children play Fortnite, as do millions of school children around the globe.

”Your kids are playing a game and people can listen to what they are doing,” said Vanunu. “The child thinks he is talking to a 12-year-old kid, but he is talking to adults who might say ’send me a picture of that and I will give you this weapon.’ This is the craziness of this game.”

Developer Epic makes money from Fortnite by charging players for decorative items like costumes and props. In October, Epic raised $1.25 billion from an investor group that included KKR & Co., Vulcan Capital and Kleiner Perkins in a deal that valued the closely held company at $15 billion.

Texas is preparing for Hurricane Harvey, which is likely to be the strongest such storm to hit the U.S. in over a decade. Currently a category two hurricane, it could strengthen into a category three storm before it strikes.

Hurricane Harvey is expected to make landfall on the middle Texas coast late Friday or early Saturday, according to the National Weather Service. Harvey will then “meander near or just inland of the middle Texas coast through the weekend,” the NWS says. It’s expected to move north along the coast Tuesday and Wednesday before dissipating.

In part because Harvey is expected to move so slowly, the hurricane is expected to bring rainfall of 15 to 25 inches, with as much as 35 inches in some areas, according to the NWS. Storm surge is an issue as well. Overall, flooding could reach between six and 12 feed above ground level.

Mandatory evacuations have been ordered in all seven Texas counties along the Gulf coast. All citizens in four of those counties have been ordered to evacuate, with officials telling residents their safety cannot be guaranteed if they stay behind, the Associated Press reports. Tens of thousands of people have evacuated the area in total.

Even still, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott told NBC affiliate station KPRC that some people aren’t taking the warnings seriously enough. “A lot of people are taking this storm for granted thinking it may not post much of a danger to them,” Abbott said.

Thousands of people will fill Brooklyn’s Barclays Center on July 27 and July 28, but not for basketball, not for hockey and not for a concert. They’ll be there for the Grand Finals of the Overwatch League, an e-sports league video game developer Blizzard Entertainment runs with its popular team-based, first-person shooter, Overwatch.

The sold-out finals will mark an end to the Overwatch League’s first season, with teams from Philadelphia and London (city-based teams are a league hallmark) set to compete for $1.4 million in prizes. Matches will be broadcast live on ESPN and Disney XD, marking the first time e-sports have been broadcast live on ESPN’s main channel in primetime, Blizzard says.

Ahead of the big event, TIME sat down with Blizzard Entertainment President and CEO Michael Morhaime to talk about the tournament, Overwatch, and the gaming industry more broadly.

The following questions and answers have been lightly edited for length and clarity.

What do you think about e-sports in terms of its cultural moment right now? It feels like it’s just on the cusp of going mainstream.

Gaming is mainstream now. That has been a shift. If you go back 20 years ago, gaming wasn’t [mainstream], really, outside of a few places in the world, South Korea being one of them. But there’s been a gradual movement of the popularity of gaming more and more into the mainstream.

It’s as big as other forms of entertainment, and so I think it’s only natural that organized competitive play would follow. I think people are interested in watching what they know and what they care about, so as you have more people where gaming is a huge part of their life, they want to see what the top players in the world are able to do.

There’s been some controversy over inclusiveness and over players saying some things they shouldn’t. Did that surprise you at all, and how do you react to that?

We want gaming and e-sports to be something that is welcoming and appropriate for everybody who wants to come and watch. I am surprised by the level of toxicity sometimes that exists online, especially where people can say things anonymously. That is something that we’re spending a lot of time talking about at Blizzard, and I think there are some good ideas that will start to make an impact on reducing that.

For some of the players, all of a sudden being in a spotlight like this, that’s probably something that surprised them. But they have to come to terms that they are public figures now, and are representing more than just themselves, and so they have to take that responsibility seriously if they want to be part of a professional organization.

We’re going through some growing pains as an industry right now, but I think it’s necessary and important.

It’s important to be inclusive for business reasons, too — you want to sell games to female players, to LGBTQ players.

We do, for sure. But even more than the business reasons … what kind of world do we want to live in? What kind of world do we want our kids to grow up in? And when you think about expanding gaming to a larger audience, you think about people going online and having their first experience, and what should that experience be? You don’t want them exposed to this sort of stuff.

Overwatch League has taken steps towards making sure players are well-compensated in terms of pay, benefits and so on. Why is that important to you?

It’s really important that the top players, we provide them with stability so that they can focus on being the best. If you look at traditional sports, this is something that traditional sports does very well. You get signed to a team and you have a lot of things that are just like a regular job, where you’re focusing on being the best that you can be. So having a minimum salary, having health benefits, having this good environment [helps] to focus on building teamwork with the team.

Has there ever been a challenge where maybe something feels right for the competitive side of Overwatch but doesn’t feel right for the average casual player?

That’s something we deal with in all of our games that are e-sports. It’s critical that at the professional level, the game is well-balanced. And we also have to look at all levels of play, and how the decisions that we’re making impact those levels as well. So it’s definitely a balancing act, but it’s something that the design team is constantly thinking about.

Do you play often?

I do, yeah.

Have you tried to play against some of these players?

That wouldn’t even be entertaining to watch. But you know, one of the awesome things that I love about Overwatch is, regardless of your skill level, you can go in there and have a really fun experience. And I do. I’m able to go in there, and I’m able to win matches, and I’m able to play with my nephew, who is quite a bit younger than me, and we can go in there and just have a great time. And I’m not very good at the game, so it’s pretty awesome that I can have such a great time playing and walk away not feeling that I’m really as bad at the game as I probably am, if you were to match me with people who really knew what they were doing.

Ancient Rome was a macho society, often misogynistic, where women did not enjoy equal citizen rights. That said, if we look hard at the history, we discover some women who made their mark, either working within their prescribed gender roles as wives, lovers, mothers, sisters or daughters, or exercising so much political, religious or, even in a few cases, military power that they smashed those roles altogether and struck out on their own. These women navigated this challenging terrain and left a major mark on the course of events. We don’t always learn about them in history class, but their stories are inspiring and merit telling (and re-telling). Without acknowledging these, the story of Rome becomes a purely masculine one, which does not capture the whys and wherefores behind many of the leaders and soldiers who rose to power in the first place.

Some of their names may be familiar, like Livia, Boudicca and Saint Helena. Livia was wife and partner to one emperor, Augustus, and mother to another, Tiberius; Boudicca led a British revolt against Roman rule; and Helena was mother and advisor to the first Christian emperor, Constantine. But there are other unsung women heroes who are equally fascinating.

Atia was Augustus’s mother. When her husband died in 59 BC, she nurtured her 4-year-old son and helped him to thrive. He was no emperor then — just a fatherless child. He had promise, though, and Atia made sure that he captured the attention of her overworked and single-minded uncle, Julius Caesar. When Caesar was assassinated in 44 BC he left the boy, now 18, as his posthumously adopted son. Atia advised her son behind the scenes and was the first person to hail him as Caesar’s heir. Although she didn’t live long enough to see him become Rome’s first emperor, Atia had the satisfaction of knowing that she had advanced her son from hard luck to political eminence.

About 75 years later, Rome was a monarchy and Augustus’s stepson Tiberius sat on the throne. Old and out of touch, Tiberius was nearly overturned by a conspiracy in AD 31. He was saved by a woman, Augustus’s niece, Antonia, who revealed the plot to him. And Antonia depended on another woman in turn, a foreigner and slave named Caenis. Immensely talented and gifted with a photographic memory, Caenis served as Antonia’s personal secretary. It was Caenis who wrote the letter that Antonia sent to Tiberius. Armed with the information it held, the aging emperor roused himself and had his enemies executed. Antonia eventually freed Caenis.

At some point during the 30s AD, Caenis began an affair with an up-and-coming Roman officer, Vespasian, who decades later, after several coup d’états and a civil war, became emperor, in AD 68. Roman law did not permit a man of his status to marry an ex-slave, but he lived with Caenis as his common-law wife. Anecdotes claim that she used her position to sell access and offices. In any case, she acquired a villa with luxurious baths in the suburbs of Rome. After she died around age 70, her baths were opened to the public. Caenis left behind a magnificent tombstone, decorated with cupids, a symbol of love, and laurels, a symbol of the emperor.

Get your history fix in one place: sign up for the weekly TIME History newsletter

About 50 years later another woman in the imperial household held the fate of the empire in her hands. She was Plotina, wife of the emperor Trajan. A wealthy and educated noblewoman from what is today the south of France, Plotina was not shy about exercising her influence. She used it to advance the career of her husband’s distant cousin, Hadrian, a young man whom she adored; her husband had a lesser opinion of him. Plotina was with Trajan on a military expedition to the east when he died after a stroke in AD 118. On his deathbed Trajan granted Plotina’s wish and named her protégé as his successor. Or did he? Rumor said that he named no heir, but that Plotina stage-managed the whole thing before the world knew her husband was gone. Hadrian became the next emperor and went on to a great reign. Plotina, meanwhile, lived comfortably in retirement on the income from a brickworks that prospered in an era of a Roman construction boom — a brickworks managed by a female overseer. When Plotina died, Hadrian had her named a goddess.

About 75 years later another strong woman served as the emperor’s partner. Julia Domna was the wife of Septimius Severus, who took the throne in AD 193. She was Syrian and he was North African. After Severus’s death in AD 211, her sons shared the throne. Her older son, Caracalla, put her in charge of his correspondence and response to petitions, making Domna a sort of press secretary, a key position. Such formal power was unheard of for an imperial woman but Caracalla often made his own rules. Yet he soon broke his mother’s heart by having his younger brother Geta executed. The young man died in Domna’s arms. A few years later Caracalla was assassinated; distraught and possibly sick herself, Domna committed suicide. Her combination of power and grief make her unique in the annals of Rome’s imperial family.

Not all women who gained fame in the Roman empire were related to the emperors. Zenobia was a Syrian queen who carved out a kingdom in the eastern part of the Roman empire. From her capital city of Palmyra, she sent out armies that conquered territory extending from what is today central Turkey to southern Egypt. A tolerant ruler, she embraced the different ethnic groups in her realm and appealed to each of them according to their own customs. Meanwhile, she turned her court into a center of learning and philosophy.

But the empire struck back. In AD 272 there came an attack led by the Roman emperor Aurelian, a superb general. For her part, Zenobia accompanied her army to the front, but left command in battle to an experienced general. He did not prevail, however, and after two defeats Zenobia surrendered. One source says that she was dragged to Rome and forced to take part in a humiliating triumph, that is, victory parade, but another says that she died on the way to Italy. She may have died because of disease, but another possibility (not uncommon in Roman times) is that she refused food from her captors, dying in defiant resistance.

These are just some of the women who changed the shape of Roman history through their political strategy, their romantic liaisons, their battle mettle and their roles as mothers (and thus their sons’ champions). Beyond Women’s History Month, their stories have much to teach us about the grit, determination and strategy deployed by the gender thought of as inferior in Roman times. They achieved so much in a society that didn’t fully value them — imagine what they could have done if it had been the opposite.

Barry Strauss is Professor of History and Classics, Bryce and Edith M. Bowmar Professor in Humanistic Studies at Cornell University, and author of TEN CAESARS: Roman Emperors from Augustus to Constantine (Simon & Schuster; on sale March 5)

Not in the mood to cook up a feast on Thanksgiving? Burned the turkey to a crisp — or forgot to stick it in the oven soon enough? Tired of mashed potatoes, and sick of stuffing? Not to worry: while many smaller establishments shut down for the fall holiday, there are a number of chain restaurants open on Thanksgiving Day and serving up meals to hungry diners who choose to forego a traditional at-home turkey dinner on Thanksgiving Day.

From Applebee’s to Denny’s to Burger King and beyond, plenty of national franchises keep their doors open; some even have specialized Thanksgiving dinner menu times. If you need a coffee fix, never fear; Starbucks and Dunkin Donuts will also still be on hand for caffeine requirements. And even some high-end steakhouses, like the Capital Grille, Smith & Wollensky and Ruth’s Chris, will be dishing out Thanksgiving dinners. There are a few notable exceptions to the places open on Thanksgiving rule; KFC, Chipotle, Taco Bell and Wendy’s observe the holiday at their branches, so you can rule out your go-to burritos and fried chicken for the day. And it’s worth looking up the hours of the local franchises you want to drop by, just in case they have reduced service.

What restaurants are open on Thanksgiving?

Here’s where you’ll still be able to stop by on Thanksgiving Day, no matter what happens at home.

Applebee’s

Bob Evans

Buca di Beppo

Burger King

Capital Grille

Cracker Barrel

Del Taco

Denny’s

Dunkin’ Donuts

IHOP

Marie Callender’s

Ruth’s Chris Steak House

Popeyes

Smith & Wollensky

Starbucks

Tim Hortons

TGI Fridays

Waffle House

White Castle

Louise Brown doesn’t mind if you call her a test-tube baby, “but I prefer IVF – since there weren’t any test tubes involved,” she says with a laugh, gesturing to the large glass jar in which she started her life.

That jar is now displayed at the Science Museum in London, because — exactly forty years ago Wednesday — Louise Brown became the first person to be born after being conceived outside of the human body, through in vitro fertilization (IVF). Her embryo was taken from the jar — called a “desiccator” — and transferred into her mother Lesley’s womb.

Nine months later, Louise arrived, and so did the world’s media. Hordes of reporters, representing outlets from the U.S. to Japan, descended on the small southwestern English town of Oldham, determined to bear witness to what TIME then called “the most awaited birth in perhaps 2,000 years.”

The mood before the birth was tense. British scientist Robert Edwards and his gynecologist colleague Patrick Steptoe had been working toward it for more than a decade. Edwards had first fertilized an egg outside the womb in 1969, later calling in Steptoe to help him refine the technique for people. The pair had attempted implantation in 282 women. Five had become clinically pregnant but none had so far given birth to a live baby. Alongside Jean Purdy, the world’s first embryologist and an essential but often forgotten member of the team, Edwards and Steptoe worked under secretive conditions, owing to intense competition between fertility researchers and opposition from religious groups and the public.

When the big day came, doctors filmed the caesarean section in order to capture Lesley’s damaged Fallopian tubes and prove to the public that Steptoe and Edwards’ claims were not a hoax. Some were critical of Lesley and her husband John for making their daughter’s birth so public. “By turning the birth of their child into a media event, the Browns have […] degraded and institutionalized the child, and for that act, not for their act of medically assisted birth, the Browns should be viewed as symbols of the degeneration of Western morals,” TIME reader Grant Parsons of Ann Arbor, Mich., wrote in after the magazine reported the news of Louise’s birth.

“My parents didn’t have a choice about making it public,” Brown tells TIME. “If they didn’t, they would have had people asking ‘Why can’t we see her? What’s wrong with her?’” Steptoe and Edwards needed the birth to be public, Brown says. “Had there been anything at all wrong with me, it would have been the end of IVF.”

Brown says that, though her mother was a private person, “she would have done anything” for Steptoe and Edwards because she was so grateful.

“Not long before mum passed away, she said that without IVF she wouldn’t have anybody left in the world,” says Brown. “Even up to her last days she was proud of who she was and what she did.”

The medical pioneers later became like Louise’s grandparents – when she got pregnant with her first child, she wrote to Bob to tell him before anyone else. She now lives a “very normal life” in southwestern England, working for a freight company in Bristol and living with her husband and two sons.

Many were jubilant about the first successful IVF birth. Stuart Kunkler from Columbus, Ohio, wrote to the magazine that it would be “a glorious day for women afflicted with the type of sterility Mrs. Brown has overcome,” while Margaret Wood Milan from New Hampshire wrote that, as with abortion rights, the arrival of IVF was a boon for those who share “the same basic belief: that parenthood should be a matter of choice.”

Others were terrified of what Louise would mean for humanity. Religious groups were opposed to the idea of “playing God” with reproduction, and to a process in the course of which many embryos often died. But even secular society found the idea alarming. Newspapers and readers made regular comparisons to Aldous Huxley’s 1934 novel Brave New World, in which natural sexual reproduction is banned and humans are grown in labs through a process similar to what happened before the embryo was placed inside Lesley’s womb. “We’re on a slippery slope,” British Geneticist Robert J. Berry told TIME in 1978. “Western society is built around the family; once you divorce sex from procreation, what happens to the family?”

So far, the family seems to have done all right.

In the years after Louise Brown’s birth, the number of women undergoing IVF grew slowly, with the first baby born through the treatment in the U.S. in 1981. The 40th IVF baby, born in 1982, was Louise’s sister Natalie.

Now, some 6 million babies worldwide have been born through IVF, according to the Science Museum. Debate still rages on over who should have access to the treatment and who should pay for it — the average cycle costs $12,000 in the U.S. and success rates vary between around 40% and 2% depending on a woman’s age. But the number of babies born through IVF goes up every year in the U.S., with more than 70,000 in 2016.

Brown says she was “shielded” from negative reactions to IVF growing up, despite her parents receiving thousands of letters. Now, the response is mostly positive.

“A few months ago I was in the supermarket with my husband and sons and I heard footsteps running up behind me,” she says. “It was a woman and she had a 4 year-old — the same age as my son — and a tiny baby in a pram. She said that she’d always wanted to thank my mum and me because without us she’d never have had those two. It makes you tear up.”

When TIME Magazine ran a cover story in 1969 about the then-ongoing grape boycott, organized in part by the United Farm Workers in an effort to address working conditions among the laborers who picked those grapes in California, Dolores Huerta was there — sort of.

She was described in the story as the “tiny, tough assistant” of UFW leader Cesar Chavez. In reality, however, while Chavez was the head of the organization, Huerta was far more than an assistant. She and Chavez worked together in laying the groundwork for the union in the late 1950s and early 1960s. She worked directly with the farmworkers for whom the group advocated, and also in the state capital as their legislative advocate. She risked her life for her activism, is credited with coining the slogan “Yes, we can,” and along the way raised 11 children, many of whom have become activists in their own rights. In 2012, she received the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

The question of how such an important figure in 20th century history could be seen as a mere assistant is a central theme of the documentary Dolores, which has its PBS premiere on Tuesday night. With the film’s Independent Lens debut on the horizon, the 87-year-old activist spoke to TIME about what it was like to be a woman leading a labor movement in the 1960s, and what comes next.

One of the main theses of this film is that you didn’t get credit for the work you did to organize the farmworkers. What did you think of that as the focus of the movie? Did you feel overlooked at the time?

I never felt overlooked because I didn’t expect any kind of recognition. I think that’s very typical of women. I had been acculturated to be supportive, to be accommodating, to support men in the work they do. We never think of getting credit or recognition or even taking the power. We didn’t think it those terms. Of course I think that’s changing now and there’s a surge of women who are not only running for office, but getting elected. That could make an incredible amount of difference in our world. We will never have peace in the world until feminists take power.

How would you define what it means to be a feminist?

To me, a feminist is a person who supports a woman’s reproductive rights, who supports a woman’s right to an abortion, who supports LGBT rights, who supports workers and labor unions, somebody who cares about the environment, who cares about civil rights and equality and equity in terms of our economic system. That is a feminist. And of course we know that there are many men who are feminists as well as women.

The film covers a little bit of the moment where you see the link between what you’re working on with the farmworkers and the feminist movement of the time, and the question of whether there was room in the feminism of the 1960s for the women for whom you advocated. Were there any particular moments that made you feel excluded or included?

I have never felt excluded. My mother was a feminist. She was a business woman. She was a dominant force in our family. But when I went to work with the farmworker’s union as an organizer, I kind of had to subdue my feminist tendencies in that respect. Women of color have always been in the forefront, of the civil rights movement and of the labor movement, but when you think about the feminist movement, it was originally organized by middle-class women. That’s why a lot of people have that narrative that feminism is for white women. Lots has been made out of that, but I think sometimes that’s not really fair. That’s the way that it was. But I don’t think the feminist movement was meant to exclude any people of color.

When TIME selected the people speaking out about sexual harassment and assault to be 2017’s Person of the Year, there was a line in the story about farmworkers marching in solidarity with Hollywood actors. When did you first become aware of sexual harassment as an issue affecting farmworkers?

Farmworker women have always been subjected to sexual harassment and rape. The women would have to have sex with the foremen to make sure that they kept their jobs. It was their form of job security to have children by these guys. The thing is, a lot of time you have farmworkers who work as families, so there’s a lot of fear, because if the woman reports sexual harassment from the foreman, then maybe the whole family will get fired. There’s also a threat of violence because her partner could feel that she was responsible for the come-ons, and she could then face violence at home. Also they work out in the fields and they’re kind of isolated. In California, because of the work we did with the farmworkers’ union, the Agricultural Labor Relations Board has included training on sexual harassment as part of the work that they do.

Was that something people were talking about early in this work, or was it hush-hush?

I think people talked about it amongst themselves, and of course we did a lot of work when I worked with the farmworkers’ union to get women to come out and report sexual harassment. Luckily in California, women are able to report sexual harassment and they don’t have to do it openly, they can do it privately.

Both in the new interviews conducted for this movie and also in older footage of you, there’s a lot of discussion of the ways you balanced motherhood and your work—but Cesar Chavez had children too and you don’t see people asking him about that.

Cesar’s wife Helen did work for a credit union, but she didn’t have to travel like I did, like with the grape boycott, so Cesar’s kids had a kind of happy-mom-at-home-all-the-time experience.

Did anyone ask him or other men you worked with about their choice to focus on their work rather than spending that time with their families?

Probably not. The thing about that is that every single mother in every single working family has that question every single day. Who am I going to leave my children with? Are they going to be safe? Are they going to be protected? That’s something women have to deal with all the time. Watching the movie I thought to myself, wait a minute, this is something we have to advocate for. We have to make sure that the children are not only safe while the families are working, but also that they’re getting a good education. In the movie, they made a big deal out of [how my work affected my children], but what they didn’t say in the movie was that we had a daycare center in the union hall for the mothers on the picket line. We had the first farmworker daycare in the state of California.

I went back and looked at the cover story in TIME about the grape boycott in 1969 and it makes the interesting point that the grape growers saw a labor dispute, but the workers saw it as a cultural cause about pride and identity. How did the farmworkers’ cause first become linked to the larger issue of Latino identity?

I think it was inherent in the way the farmworkers were left out of the National Labor Relations Board to begin with. When they [created] the NLRB back in the 1930s, the farmworkers and domestic workers were left out of the law. They were people of color. They were Mexicans and African-Americans. So right at the instant of that it became a civil rights movement. When you think of the fact that they denied the farmworkers toilets in the field, it was the worst kind of brutal discrimination. A lot of this is very racial, about the way the workers were treated. Remember in the South, even as recently as the ‘60s when we organized in Florida, the majority of the farm workers there were African-Americans and people from the islands.

At the time, how did you make that connection for the workers, between their labor rights and their identities?

That’s something that they lived every day of their lives out in the fields. When I came to work with farmworkers — just the fact that I was with them — I was treated differently than when I came forward as a middle-class schoolteacher. When I was in Sacramento as the political director for the United Farm Workers and for the Community Service Organization, you’d have the representatives of the [grape] growers in front of a legislative committee, and they would say, ‘We do these people a favor because they’re a bunch of winos, alcoholics, and nobody will hire them.’ This is the picture that they gave of the farmworkers. I remember going up to this one guy and saying, ‘If you ever say that about farmworkers again I will go out there and talk about how you are a bunch of racists,’ so he changed his tune.

Where do you see American activism going next?

I think we’re in a critical moment. We have all of these tools that are accessible to us now. All this knowledge we have, they can’t hide to truth from us. But at the same time, I’ve been following the movie around this country this last year just to get across this notion that we have to end racism, we have to end misogyny, we have to end homophobia, we have to end bigotry and looking down on our working people. We have to do it through our educational system. We’ve got to include, from pre-K, the contributions of people of color in our schools today, beginning with Native Americans, whose land we took and have never compensated them for, to the African slaves who built the White House and Congress, and then the immigrants who came from Mexico and tilled the land and built the railroads and then the Japanese, the Chinese, people from India, the Latinos, all these people who built the infrastructure of our country. And the contributions of the labor movement! How many people know how we got to eight-hour days? This should all be included in our educational system, so we can get a big giant eraser and erase the ignorance that we have right now in the United States of America.

This interview has been edited and condensed.