You’re not the only one who silently laments spending time searching through the Contacts app on your iPhone or other iOS device, hunting for that one person you barely remember yet need to get in touch with for whatever reason. It only gets worse when you realize their information is either incorrect, outdated, or not where you thought you saved it.

Whether you’re looking for a co-worker, a client, an acquaintance, or a long-lost friend you bumped into at a party, it’s helpful to keep who’s who in order in your Contacts app. And you just might find that the Contacts app is far more powerful when you take the time to get the most out of it. Here’s how.

Add more contact info

Filling out contact information beyond a person’s name, email, and phone number might seem like overkill, but doing so can make Siri a more powerful tool when it comes to connecting with people. By entering people’s addresses, nicknames, phone numbers, and what kind of relationship you have with them, you can ask Siri to do things like “call my brother” or “tell my teddy bear I’m running late.”

Adding contacts’ address info also makes it easier to see how long it’ll take to get to your friends house by asking Siri instead of searching in your Maps app, or worse, asking your friend to remind you for the millionth time.

Organize your contacts into groups

Got a book club group you’ve got to text? Can’t remember all of their names? That’s where grouping contacts comes in. iPhone users can manage their grouped contacts either in iCloud or via the Contacts app on the Mac using the Groups feature, which syncs across your devices. Groups are perfect for sending messages to multiple co-workers, family members, or your weekly Fortnite squad all at once, without worry of accidental exclusion.

Select a default contacts list

Whether you depend on Apple, Google, or your work’s email server to store your contacts, make sure they’re all in the same place. For that, picking a default contacts list is a lifesaver, and will help you mitigate problems like duplicate names, outdated entries, and general location disorder in your Contacts app.

In your iPhone’s Settings app, hit the Contacts section, then select Default Account. If you’ve got multiple accounts added to your iPhone, selecting a default will send every future contact you add to the account of your choice. You can also exclude the contacts section of the accounts stored on your iPhone by selecting each account and unchecking the Contacts icon.

Make yourself a contacts card worth sharing

While you most certainly have a contact entry for yourself in your digital address book, chances are it has sensitive info you’d rather not hand off to someone you just met. Information like contacts, relationship connections, and addresses are usually private, so don’t fret if you’re hesitant about giving it away. Instead, make a contact card to share with new acquaintances specifically designed for winning friends and influencing people.

In your Contacts app, make a new entry filled with fewer, and more public-friendly, details — you may only want to share your work number or your personal number, for instance, and you may or may not want to share your social media handles. If you really want to make an impression, write a description of your first meeting in your contact’s notes area before you send it, ensuring neither of you forget your beginnings. And don’t forget to add a photo. To share your contact card or that of a friend, find it in your iPhone’s Contacts app, scroll to the bottom, and select Share Contact. You can AirDrop your contact card, too.

Use your Mac’s Contacts app to get organized instead

The Contacts app in macOS offers another route when it comes to sharing your contact info without divulging sensitive content. In the Contacts app, visit Preferences, and select vCard. There you can enable a “private me card,” which lets you pick and choose which bits of information you want to share and what you want to hide. While it’s a great solution to fixing the issue on a Mac, enabling a private me card will not hide your sensitive contact info if shared via your iPhone or other iOS device.

On the night of April 3, 1968, as Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his final public speech, rain poured down on Memphis. Inside the walls of Mason Temple, King urged his audience to keep fighting for racial and economic justice — in Memphis, in America, around the world. He concluded by proclaiming that God had given him the opportunity “to go up to the mountain,” from which he’d looked out and seen “the Promised Land.”

“I may not get there with you,” he thundered, “but I want you to know tonight that we, as a people, will get to the Promised Land.”

He was murdered less than 24 hours later.

Fifty years later, on the night of April 3, 2018, the skies opened up over Memphis once again, almost as though history were trying to exert itself with special force. As crowds gathered inside Mason Temple to pay tribute to King, and as organizers at the National Civil Rights Museum (housed in the old Lorraine Motel where King was assassinated) prepared for a full Day of Remembrance for King the next day, lightning cut the sky and the clouds spat rain. The deluge seemed appropriate.

By the next morning, the skies had cleared. Outside the union headquarters of AFSCME local 1733, crowds began to gather for a rally to remember King, and to celebrate the sanitation workers in whose company he died. The events were spearheaded by AFSCME and the Church of God in Christ, and were organized under the masthead of their “I AM 2018” campaign. The speaker’s rostrum reflected the “I AM” campaign’s goal of economic justice. It also reflected its origins in the labor movement. Leaders of many of the major unions in America, including Lee Saunders and Richard Trumka, testified to King’s legacy and of to the need to rebuild and protect a robust union movement in this country. William Barber spoke on behalf of the Poor People’s Campaign: A National Call for Moral Revival. Bernie Sanders was on hand, as well, linking King’s labors to modern fights for universal healthcare, a living wage and environmental justice. (Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez had the unenviable task of being slotted between them.)

In death, as in his life, Dr. King has loomed large in the American psyche. In 2018, he is perceived as universally claimable and has, by consequence, routinely been claimed. Sometimes this leads to deployments of King’s legacy that are controversial or just plain incorrect. But progressive social movements of many various stripes have also long claimed King, and with good reason.

So, outside AFSCME headquarters on Wednesday, it was impossible not to wonder where those other fights were. This was a program about economic justice and just one program out of many. And labor, of course, deserves its day. It was instrumental in creating an American middle class to begin with, and despite that fact, it’s been under assault for generations. Moreover, it’s true that Martin Luther King died as a martyr to the labor movement (among other things). Union activists are right to claim him.

But it was striking that, in a program that stretched for hours, almost no one said the words “Black Lives Matter,” or even talked about that movement — which, consciously or not, takes direct lessons from many of King’s most forceful arguments about and critiques of America. Almost all of the speakers were men, and they were remarkably vague, bordering on silent, about women’s and LGBTQ rights. Greisa Martínez Rosas, Deputy Executive Director of United We Dream, offered a rousing defense of undocumented immigrants, but issues facing Islamic-Americans were mostly absent.

While it may seem unreasonable to ask any program to cover every base, the narrow focus of this event — one of the two most high-profile public events happening on the Day of Remembrance — does matter, and it matters quite a lot. As King remembrance events were escalating on April 3, a number of prominent activists, including Black Lives Matter’s Keedran Franklin and Fight for $15’s Ashley Cathey, were arrested by Memphis Police Department as they protested outside an immigrant detention facility. In the middle of a moment of silence to remember King on Wednesday evening, officers with the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office rode motorcycles — casually enough to display no urgency, loudly enough to display little respect — down Main Street in Memphis, less than a hundred yards from the Lorraine Motel balcony. And it was only a week ago that 17-year-old Dorian Harris, after allegedly stealing a beer from a convenience store here, was shot and killed by a store clerk as he ran away. The clerk never called 911, and Harris’s body laid outside in a Memphis yard for two days before it was called in.

To be in Memphis right now is to be inspired by events unfolding here, and buoyed by the possibilities that they present. But it is also to be reminded of the fact that they will remain only possibilities without hard work spent building lasting coalitions across whatever lines might cleave us from others seeking to build a more beloved community. How and whether Americans successfully build those coalitions remain very urgent questions. And those questions were the ones that went largely unspoken on this day of commemoration. Many of King’s battles still need to be fought, and each deserves its moment in focus. But in order to truly represent his legacy, and move us forward, they must continue to appreciate the interconnected nature of these struggles. Indeed, as King himself reminded us, “No one…will be free until we all are free.”

At 6:01 on Wednesday night, in front of the Lorraine Motel, bells tolled 39 times, one for each of King’s years. It was a profoundly moving, and profoundly sad, moment.

King, like most of us, was not perfect at bridging all of the divides that society artificially constructed around him. But he sensed the urgency of trying to bridge those that he could recognize as bridgeable, and worked to do so throughout his life. That seems like a fortifying, indeed a hopeful, fact. And this notion accords with how many American choose to distill King, considering him through a prism of hope.

This makes some sense given King’s public pronouncements of hope (despite his private and public despondency about racism, militarism and capitalism), but hope is actually, of course, not nearly enough. As my friend Charles McKinney, who teaches Africana Studies at Rhodes College in Memphis, has been known to say regarding those who simply hope for a better world, “The hope is in the work.”

King knew that better than anyone. He hoped, yes. But he also labored relentlessly — to the point of exhaustion and depression, in the face of violence, arrest, incarceration, and in opposition to the intransigence and often active resistance of state, local, and federal-level instruments of government. He was killed while working toward — not hoping for — a better world.

The final book that King wrote was entitled Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? That remains the crucial question. King worked to build community, and to dialogue with those who society considered far too “radical” — from rioters to gang members to Black Power activists. He disagreed with all of them. And yet he labored hard, day after day, to understand where they came from and locate the ground they might find in common. That search — for community, and a place to go — remains our central question.

Simon Balto is an Assistant Professor of History and Director of African American Studies at Ball State University. He is the author of the forthcoming Occupied Territory: Policing Black Chicago from Red Summer to Black Power, which will be published by the University of North Carolina Press.

As America comes to grips with two more violent, homegrown plots — an attempt to mail pipe bombs to prominent Democrats and a mass shooting at a Pittsburgh synagogue — reality and surreality may seem hard to disentangle. Experts are working to figure out exactly what happened in each case and why, on levels ranging from the societal to forensic. But it appears that the two suspects shared at least one habit: engaging with extreme content online.

Robert Bowers, the suspect in the Pittsburgh shooting, posted a message on a niche social network known to be used by white supremacists shortly before opening fire at the Tree of Life synagogue. Cesar Sayoc, the Florida man charged with sending explosive material to political figures, left a trail of conspiracy theories and right-wing sensationalism on Facebook. While their use of technology may help reveal their motives, it also speaks to bigger problems that researchers are racing to better understand. Chief among them is the way that the Internet can make irrational viewpoints seem commonplace.

“A lot of our behavior is driven by what we think other people do and what other people find acceptable,” says Nour Kteily, an associate professor at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management who studies dehumanization and hostility. And there’s a good chance that even those who avoid the dark corners of the web are encountering extreme ideas about what is right and who is wrong. A Facebook spokesperson says the company took action on 2.5 million pieces of content classified as hate speech in the first quarter of 2018.

There have always been people who espouse vitriol. “But the emergence of these online platforms has reshaped the conversation,” Kteily says. “They in many ways amplify the danger of things like dehumanizing speech or hate speech.” Marginal ideas can now spread faster and further, creating an impression that they are less marginal and more mainstream.

Big technology companies are acknowledging the dangers researchers have already uncovered when it comes to the ways that encountering hateful speech can skew attitudes. In one 2015 study, people who were exposed to homophobic epithets tended to rate gay people as less human and physically distance themselves from a gay man in subsequent tasks. And researchers have long warned that dehumanizing people is a tactic that goes hand-in-hand with oppressing them, because it helps create mental distance between groups.

“We are permitted to treat non-human animals in ways that are impermissible in the treatment of human beings,” David Livingstone Smith, a professor of philosophy at the University of New England, explained in a previous interview with TIME. Such language can help “disable inhibitions against acts of harm,” he said.

One question raised by the Pittsburgh shooting is what happens when extremists are shut out of mainstream social networks, as companies like Facebook and Twitter take a harder line on these issues. Facebook has been hiring content moderators and subject matter experts at a rapid clip, hoping to do a better job of proactively finding hate speech and identifying extremist organizations. Twitter continues to develop a more stringent policy on what constitutes dehumanizing speech that violates its terms. “Language that makes someone less than human can have repercussions off the service, including normalizing serious violence,” Twitter employees wrote in a post announcing proposed policy language.

Gab, a social media site on which Bowers wrote anti-Semitic posts, disavowed all acts of violence and terrorism in statements to TIME and other publications in the aftermath of the shooting. But the site has become a haven for white supremacists and other extremists, given its promise of letting people espouse ideas that might get them banned elsewhere, says Joan Donovan, an expert in media manipulation at research institute Data & Society. “What that does is create a user population on Gab of people who are highly tolerant of those views,” she says. That, in turn, might make things like rantings about Jewish conspiracies seem more widespread than they would on a platform where poisonous posts are surrounded — and perhaps diluted — by billions of rational ones.

Bowers’ final post before the shooting read, in part, “Screw your optics, I’m going in.” The term “optics,” Donovan says, likely refers to tactics discussed among white supremacists, specifically the idea that the movement will be more successful if its members are perceived as non-violent victims of “anti-white” thought police. Among the figures the movement portrays as its own oppressors, she says, are big technology companies. “[W]e are in a war to speak freely on the internet,” a Gab-associated account wrote on Medium, before that company suspended it in the wake of the shooting. The post accused Silicon Valley companies of “purg[ing] any ideology that does not conform to their own echo chamber bubble world.” Such sites, where the alt-right flocks, have been described as “alt tech.”

Donovan says that these niche platforms are places “where many harassment campaigns are organized, where lots of conspiracy talk is organized.” Racist and sexist memes that might get an account suspended on other platforms are easy to find. “The problem is when you’re highly tolerant of those kinds of things,” Donovan explains, “other more sane and more normal people don’t stay.”

Though social networks might seem well-established at this point, more than a decade after Facebook was founded, academics are lagging behind when it comes to understanding all the effects these evolving platforms might be having on users’ behavior and well-being. Experts interviewed for this article were not aware of research that investigates, on an individual level, the possible link between posting extreme or hateful content online and the likelihood of being aggressive offline. Posting can serve “a public commitment device,” Kteily says. But that’s far from a causal link.

Newer research is attempting, at least in the aggregate, to better understand the relationship between activity on social networks and violence in the offline world. Carlo Schwarz and Karsten Müller, researchers associated with the University of Warwick and Princeton University, respectively, analyzed every anti-refugee attack that had occurred in Germany over a two-year period — more than 3,000 instances — and looked at variables ranging from the wealth of each community to the numbers of refugees living there. One factor that cropped up across the country is that attacks tended to occur in towns where there was more usage of Facebook, a platform where users encounter anti-refugee sentiment.

The study’s methodology has come under some criticism, and Schwarz emphasizes that the findings need to be replicated before universal conclusions are drawn, especially because isolated Internet outages across Germany helped provide special circumstances for their study. (When access to the Internet went down in localities with high amounts of Facebook usage, they found that attacks on refugees dropped too.) But what their research suggests, Schwarz says, is that there is a sub-group of people “who seem to be pushed toward violent acts by the exposure to online hate speech.” The echo chamber effect of social networks may be part of the problem. When people are exposed to the same targeted criticisms over and over, he says, it may change their perception about “how acceptable it is to commit acts of violence against minority groups.”

Facebook, Twitter and Google are dedicating resources to the problem, yet there are many challenges: as algorithms are designed to pick up certain red-flag words, extremist groups adopt coded language to spread the same old ideas; content moderators need to understand myriad languages and cultures; and the sheer volume of posts on Facebook alone, which number in the billions each day, is overwhelming. The company says that it finds 38% of hate speech before it’s reported, a smaller proportion than for terror propaganda and nudity. The company expects that number to improve, a spokesperson says, also acknowledging the difficulty of tackling content that tends to be context-dependent.

And while major tech companies may feel that getting a handle on this problem is a business imperative — a Twitter spokesperson says that maintaining healthy conversation is a “top priority” — current law largely shields platforms from responsibility for the content on their platforms. That means that while some social networks may get serious in tackling extremist speech, there is no legal mandate for all platforms to follow suit. That is one reason, in the wake of these latest plots, that some lawmakers are renewing calls for tighter regulation on social media.

In the meantime, academics will keep trying to provide research that helps companies make decisions based on data rather than good intentions. “Research is obviously slow,” says Schwarz, who is now investigating whether there is a connection between Twitter usage and offline violence in the U.S. “It’s still a new field.”

Extreme heat recently melted roads in the U.K.; hit a record-shattering 120°F in Chino, Calif.; and led to more than 70 deaths in Quebec. These cases illustrate a vexing paradox for scientists and policymakers: air conditioning keeps people cool and saves lives but is also one of the biggest contributors to global warming.

Two new reports underscore the scale of the challenge. On July 16, Sustainable Energy for All, an NGO that is dedicated to clean energy and is affiliated with the U.N. and World Bank, said that 1.1 billion people across the globe lack access to adequate cooling. And a May analysis from the International Energy Agency (IEA), an intergovernmental organization, shows that just 8% of the 2.8 billion people living in the world’s hottest regions own an air conditioner, compared with more than 90% in places like the U.S. and Japan.

For those billions, gaining access to air-conditioning isn’t just a luxury. Without cooling, heat exhaustion can disrupt the body’s functioning and lead to extreme ailments like organ failure and, eventually, death. The number of people who die of heat-related illness could grow to more than 250,000 by 2050, according to a World Health Organization report. Everyone else will become less productive as they toil under the sun, with some parts of Asia and Africa facing up to a 12% decline in work hours by 2050 as a result of heat stress, according to the Sustainable Energy for All report. More broadly, a lack of cooling often also means that people cannot ensure food safety or store medicine.

On the surface, addressing the issue appears simple: countries need to expand access to air-conditioning and provide public cooling locations for people who cannot afford their own devices. This is under way. Sustainable Energy for All estimates that some 2.3 billion people in the developing world are on the verge of buying air conditioners, largely thanks to rising incomes as they leave poverty and enter the new global middle class. And in some places, government programs have sought to build public cooling centers for those without devices of their own.

“The world is getting richer. It’s growing, and most of that is happening in the tropics,” says Dan Hamza-Goodacre, who heads the Kigali Cooling Efficiency Program, an initiative that targets pollution from cooling. “We’re set for an absolute explosion in the demand for cooling.”

But using air-conditioning as a tool for development is complex, both globally and locally. The IEA estimates that, without government action, air conditioners will use as much energy by 2050 as China uses today for all its electricity. That represents a threefold increase in energy consumption by air conditioners from today, much of which could come in developing countries that remain heavily reliant on fossil fuels. On the ground, nations will also need to build new power plants to keep up with demand or risk an unstable grid.

“Air-conditioning has been an enormous, enormous drain on electricity,” says Erik Solheim, who heads the U.N. Environment Programme. “Cooling is probably the biggest energy consumer, and people tend not to think of it.”

Beyond energy consumption, cooling products can also contribute to climate change by emitting hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), chemicals that trap heat in the atmosphere at alarming rates. Scientists say that unabated emissions from HFCs alone could add nearly 1°F of warming to the atmosphere by the end of the century — nearly a third of the 3.6°F target enshrined in the Paris Agreement by scientists as the maximum temperature rise before the world feels some of the most catastrophic effects of climate change.

The start of a global solution is emerging. Companies have developed more efficient cooling technology that is also free of HFCs and plan to expand the sale of such products in the developing world in the coming years. And in 2016, more than 170 nations reached an agreement called the Kigali Amendment, which sets targets to phase out HFCs and will reframe international standards for how to make air conditioners. (The U.S. is not one of the 40 countries that have ratified the deal thus far, despite support from businesses and some Senate Republicans, who believe that U.S. companies could sell the solutions.)

These efforts will have to match the magnitude of the trouble ahead. “It’s not about everybody who can afford it buying an inefficient air conditioner,” says Rachel Kyte, who headed the World Bank’s climate-change program and who now leads Sustainable Energy for All. “Government has to realize the extent of the issue they have. This isn’t something they can put off.”

This appears in the July 30, 2018 issue of TIME.

As legal questions about the extent of presidential power have continued to make headlines in recent days, President Donald Trump has made ample use of one such presidential prerogative: the pardon power.

Last Thursday, President Trump pardoned conservative writer Dinesh D’Souza, who’d pleaded guilty to violating federal campaign contribution limits. A week earlier, he’d posthumously pardoned boxer Jack Johnson, whose 1913 conviction under the Mann Act has long been seen by many as an injustice. And, on Wednesday, after Kim Kardashian West advocated for the move, he commuted the sentence of Alice Johnson, who’s been serving a life sentence for her role in a former Memphis cocaine trafficking operation. (A presidential pardon restores some rights that are often revoked for those with criminal convictions; a commutation is a reduction in punishment.) He has spoken of pardoning Martha Stewart and commuting Rod Blagojevich’s sentence, and asserted that he would in theory have the right to pardon himself.

The run of pardons has drawn a range of reactions, from applause to jokes to guesses about what kind of legal groundwork he might be laying for his own future.

So why do presidents have pardoning power in the first place?

It starts, in part, with Alexander Hamilton, who articulated the rationale for presidential pardons in the Federalist Papers when he wrote in No. 74 that “without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel.” So, as with so many things in the American civic structure, the idea is that the pardon provides checks and balances against the judiciary system; there has to be an out somewhere in the system.

In the Constitution, the president’s power to pardon for federal crimes is outlined in Article II, Section 2, which gives the Commander-in-Chief power to “grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States” (though not in “cases of impeachment”). But, though other historical documents like the Federalist Papers can offer clues into the Founding Fathers’ mindsets, suggesting they were concerned with mercy and justice, nothing is specified in the Constitution itself about why and when that power should be used.

So, since then, as TIME has previously reported, presidents have used the power for number of reasons that go beyond addressing miscarriages of justice. Those reasons — in which there’s no argument that the person is innocent, but rather some other factor in play — range from maintaining public order to bolstering their own legacies.

Pardons of high-profile figures are historical exceptions; most presidential pardons, which are often issued in large batches to fairly anonymous people for non-violent crimes, don’t make the news.

The high-profile cases that do make news can spark backlash, as seen with Trump’s Dinesh D’Souza pardon — and that’s a situation that’s only increased in the 24/7 social media and cable news cycle. Such backlash is, experts say, one reason why presidents have been using the power less in recent years, ever since President Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon after Watergate was seen as one reason why Ford lost the 1976 election. The hesitancy to pardon increased during the 1988 presidential campaign, when a famous political ad for George H.W. Bush took aim at Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis for supporting a program that furloughed prisoners after convicted murderer Willie Horton stabbed a man to death and raped his wife.

As to whether the president can pardon himself — which Trump tweeted he has the “absolute right” to do — an Office of Legal Counsel memo to President Nixon in the middle of the Watergate scandal in 1974 acknowledged that, while the U.S. Constitution may not explicitly prevent a president from pardoning himself, there is a fundamental legal principle that he’d be violating if he did.

Read more about the history of presidential pardons here: A Trump Pardon That Breaks With White House History

Let’s stop pretending, shall we? Because really, we’re not fooling anyone. Uranus is funny. It was funny when you were twelve, and it’s funny now. It was certainly funny when I was a boy and went to a space-themed summer camp where all the bunks were named after planets and Uranus happened to be where we stored the sports equipment, meaning that every now and then a counselor would say, “Somebody put those bats in Uranus,” and then would have to walk over and put them there himself because we were too busy falling over one another laughing. And it was absolutely funny in 1986 when the Voyager 2 spacecraft flew by the planet and headlines around the country said, “Probe Approaches Uranus.”

And now it’s funny again, with the news that Uranus, yes, smells terrible. It couldn’t be Mars. Nope. Couldn’t be Venus. Had to be Uranus.

The finding comes courtesy of a study in Nature Astronomy, revealing that the cloud tops of Uranus are made principally of hydrogen sulfide, the gas that is principally responsible for the foul smell of rotten eggs and, yes, human flatulence.

The Internet has done what the Internet always does in these situations, which is to resist the obvious jokes and focus soberly on the science. Kidding! “Somebody light a match,” wrote the Huffington Post. “Uranus stinks,” offered The Washington Post. And @twitmericks provided perhaps Twitter’s best contribution to the discussion with:

But while the science behind the discovery might not be as much fun as the laughs, it’s definitely more important. The solar system has four so-called gas giant planets: Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. But only Jupiter and Saturn have been studied in close detail thanks to the Cassini spacecraft, which orbited Saturn for thirteen years; the Galileo spacecraft, which spent eight years orbiting Jupiter; and the Juno spacecraft, which is orbiting Jupiter now. Uranus and Neptune, by contrast, both got a Voyager 2 flyby, and that’s been it.

Jupiter and Saturn’s cloud tops are known, thanks to the up-close analyses, to be made mostly of ammonia ice. But that doesn’t mean Uranus’s and Neptune’s would be as well. Different worlds at different distances from the sun would have condensed down in different ways when the solar system was forming 4.5 billion years ago. So to find out what the Uranian chemistry is, a team led by planetary physicist Patrick Irwin of the University of Oxford turned to the Gemini Observatory, a pair of infrared telescopes atop Mauna Kea Mountain in Hawaii, jointly operated by the U.S., Canada, Brazil, Argentina and Chile. The investigators were hoping to analyze the spectral lines—essentially the chemical fingerprints—of the gasses in Uranus’s atmosphere.

Infrared and near-infrared observatories have been in operation for a long time, but the 1.7 billion mile distance to Uranus made it nearly impossible to use the systems to get a clear sense of the planet’s chemistry. To solve the mystery, Irwin and his colleagues observed sunlight as it streamed through a backlit Uranus, and folded in a wealth of other variables, including atmospheric temperature, pressure, humidity, saturated gasses and more. Ultimately, the hydrogen sulfide showed itself.

The study provides new insights into planetary formation in our own solar system and offers clues to the chemistry of planets circling other stars. The researchers themselves, however, are not insensible to the appeal of the study to nonscientists.

“If an unfortunate human were ever to descend through Uranus’s clouds,” said Irwin in a statement that accompanied the study’s release, “they would be met with very unpleasant and odiferous conditions.”

That, in scientist-speak, is a pretty darn good flatulence joke. The rest of us aren’t so limited, of course; so feel free to, you know, let fly.

Two U.S. pilots’ unions say the potential risks of a safety feature on Boeing Co.’s 737 Max aircraft that has been linked to a deadly crash in Indonesia weren’t sufficiently spelled out in their manuals or training.

Boeing and the Federal Aviation Administration issued directives last week telling flight crews about the system, which is designed to provide extra protection against pilots losing control. That prompted aviators, unions and training departments to realize that none of the documentation for the Max aircraft included an explanation of the system, the union leaders said.

“We don’t like that we weren’t notified,” said Jon Weaks, president of the Southwest Airlines Pilots Association. Dennis Tajer, a 737 captain and spokesman for the Allied Pilots Association at American Airlines Group Inc., said his union’s members were also concerned.

The complaints from pilot union leaders at Southwest Airlines Co. and American are significant because of the size of those carriers’ 737 fleets and their Max purchases. Southwest is the largest operator of the 737 Max and has the most on order with 257 of the jets yet to be delivered. American, the world’s largest airline, has outstanding orders for 85 of the planes.

“This is not about silos and layers of bureaucracy, this is about knowing your airplane,” Tajer said. “We will always be eager and aggressive in gaining any knowledge of new aircraft.”

A bulletin from APA to American’s pilots said details about the system weren’t included in the documentation about the plane. “This is the first description you, as 737 pilots, have seen,” it said.

“The companies and the pilots should have been informed,” Weaks said. “It makes us question, ‘Is that everything, guys?’ I would hope there are no more surprises out there.”

Boeing said it is confident in the safety of the 737 Max family of jets.

“We are taking every measure to fully understand all aspects of this incident, working closely with the investigating team and all regulatory authorities involved,” the company said in a statement by email. “Safety remains our top priority and is a core value for everyone at Boeing.”

Few details have been released about the underlying causes of the Lion Air crash Oct. 29 in the sea near Jakarta, but Indonesian investigators say that an erroneous sensor prompted the plane’s computers to push the aircraft into a steep dive. A new safety measure added on the Max models to prevent pilots from losing control is what caused the plane to point downward, according to the FAA and Boeing.

A long-standing procedure taught to pilots could have halted the dive, according to the regulator and the manufacturer. The FAA ordered airlines to add an explanation into flight manuals.

Indonesia’s National Transport Safety Committee is continuing to search for the plane’s crash-proof cockpit voice recorder under the sea, it said Monday. The investigative agency plans to release a preliminary report between Nov. 28 and 29, a month after the crash, as mandated by international treaty.

The FAA, which certified the plane, said in a statement it couldn’t comment on the matter while the investigation in Indonesia remains open. The FAA’s emergency directive required that U.S. carriers revise flight manuals and said the agency “will take further action if findings from the accident investigation warrant.”

While the design of the Max has been under a spotlight since the accident, other factors in the crash could eclipse it in importance. They include questions about how maintenance was performed after problems arose on at least three prior flights of the Lion Air jet and the actions of the pilots on its last flight.

When Boeing designed its latest version of the 737, it added the new safety feature to combat a loss of lift, which is a leading contributor to the loss-of-control accidents that by far cause the most crash deaths around the world.

Known as the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, it was added “to compensate for some unique aircraft handling characteristics,” according to a bulletin sent by Southwest’s flight operations division to its pilots on Nov. 10.

Sharp Dive

When the system senses the plane is close to losing lift on the wings, it automatically commands a lowering of the nose to counteract the risk. However, the chief sensor used to predict a loss of lift — known as an angle-of-attack vane — was malfunctioning on the Lion Air flight. It essentially tricked the system into ordering a sharp dive.

Pilots are drilled on how to cut power to the so-called trim system if the plane starts to dive or climb on its own, but that procedure was never linked directly to a malfunctioning angle-of-attack sensor in training or the documentation.

“At the present time, we have found no instances of AOA anomalies with our 737 Max 8 aircraft,” the APA bulletin said, referring to angle of attack as AOA. “That is positive news, but it is no assurance that the system will not fail.”

Because the system is only designed to operate in rare conditions while pilots are manually flying, “pilots should never see” the system in operation, according to the Southwest memo. As a result, Boeing chose not to include a description of it in the extensive manuals it prepared for the Max models, said the memo.

Earlier: Crashed Lion Air Jet Had Faulty Speed Readings on Last 4 Flights

That reasoning doesn’t make sense, said Roger Cox, a retired investigator with the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board and a former airline pilot. Flight crews have a right to be concerned that details about the new system weren’t included in manuals and the short training courses they were required to take before flying the upgraded 737, Cox said.

“I would be pretty pissed” about not being told, he said. “This is important systems information that pilots should know about.”

Samsung’s latest pair of iPhone rivals, the Galaxy S9 and Galaxy S9+, hit stores on March 16. And this year it’s all about the camera: Samsung’s new phones have a mechanical dual aperture that can adjust depending on the lighting and a new Super Slo-mo feature that automatically creates GIFs from your footage.

But it’s not just about what’s new. If you’re switching from an Apple iPhone, there are plenty of more subtle features that have existed on Samsung phones and other Android devices for years that may be worth paying attention to.

After spending more than a week using the Galaxy S9+ instead of the iPhone X, here are five features that stood out to me that Apple’s smartphone is missing.

Always-on display

The screen on Samsung’s smartphones can show information like the time, date, battery level, and notification icons even when the display is turned off — essentially allowing them to double as a bedside clock. I loved being able to just glance over at my phone without picking it up to check whether or not I had any new text messages or to see if I should plug in my phone before leaving the office.

The Galaxy S9 feature was particularly helpful coming from the iPhone X, which I usually have to pick up to unlock since it doesn’t have a fingerprint sensor. Previous Samsung phone models, such as the Galaxy S8 and Galaxy S7, as well as other Android phones like the Google Pixel 2, also have this always-on display feature.

More flexibility

There are three Galaxy S9 features in particular that gave me more flexibility in terms of how I use my phone: the fingerprint sensor, the microSD card slot, and the headphone jack. I wasn’t forced to type in a passcode if I didn’t want to use facial recognition, and I could use any pair of wired headphones without remembering to bring an adapter with me all the time. Plus, knowing I had the option to add extra storage by purchasing a microSD card, many of which cost less than $100 depending on the size, eased any anxiety I might have about running out of space.

Although the iPhone X’s Face ID works most of the time, I still find myself occasionally typing in my passcode on Apple’s smartphone. It’s in these circumstances that I wish the iPhone X also had a fingerprint scanner on its back like the Galaxy S9 and other Android phones (I now find myself instinctively reaching for it on the iPhone X). The Galaxy S9’s fingerprint sensor is located at a more natural location compared to previous versions — underneath the camera rather than alongside it — which made it easy to get to my home screen almost immediately since my finger naturally aligns with the sensor. I often found this to be smoother than making sure the S9’s camera lined up with my eyes properly for facial recognition.

Read more: Review: Samsung Didn’t Change Much With the Galaxy S9 — And That’s Great

Because the Galaxy S9 has a 3.5mm headphone jack, I didn’t have to worry about keeping track of a small accessory to continue using the headphones I already own when listening to music. Newer iPhones and many recent Android phones don’t have a headphone jack, meaning you’ll have to use the included dongle to attach your current wired headphones to the device. Otherwise, your choices include using the earbuds that come bundled with your device or switching to wireless Bluetooth headphones.

As with many other Android phones, you can also choose to add more storage to the Galaxy S9 by purchasing a microSD card, which may be useful for those who download a lot of full-length movies or frequently shoot 4K video on their phones. It’s possible to find microSD cards on Amazon that add 128GB to your phone for about $40-$45, whereas with an iPhone you’re stuck with the same amount of storage you paid for on day one.

Low-light camera

The iPhone X’s top-notch camera is tough to beat, and in most cases I found that it captures sharper details and more accurate colors than Samsung’s phone. But when it comes to shooting in the dark, Samsung wins. Nearly every time I captured photos in dim environments, the Galaxy S9+ was able to grab a cleaner and clearer shot than the iPhone X. That’s thanks in part to the S9’s improved camera, which can now adjust its aperture to f/1.5 or f/2.4 depending on the lighting.

Check out the photos below to see how the S9+ compares to the iPhone X and its Galaxy S8 predecessor.

Samsung Galaxy S9+

Apple iPhone X

Samsung Galaxy S8

Read more: 3 Things I Learned After One Month With Apple’s HomePod

The curved screen

New smartphones from Samsung, Apple, Google, and LG all have nearly borderless displays that occupy almost the entire face of the device. But Samsung’s new phones, as well as the Galaxy S8 and Galaxy Note 8, are different in that their displays ever so slightly curve over the phones’ left and right edges. This gives the devices a more elegant look and makes the illusion that there’s no frame around the screen feel more convincing.

Plus, the Galaxy S9 doesn’t have a “notch” at the top of the screen for its camera and facial recognition sensors, a design choice for which some tech pundits and fans criticized Apple.

Multi-tasking

As I imagine is the case for many people, I use my phone for just about everything when I’m not at work: Getting directions, taking notes, sending emails, browsing Facebook and so on. That means I spend a lot of time switching between apps, especially if I’m trying to copy and paste material from my notes or a web browser into an email.

While I love the simplicity of iOS, Android phones are generally much better at helping you juggle several tasks at once. Samsung’s smartphones have long offered the ability to open more than one app on screen at a time, and that’s no different with the Galaxy S9. Just tap the recent apps button and press the multi-window symbol in the app’s title bar to launch it in split screen mode. Apple has made an effort to bring better multitasking to the iPad through features like Slide Over and Split View in recent years, but we have yet to see these capabilities come to the iPhone.

Norway plans to spend roughly $12.7 million to upgrade its “doomsday” seed vault, the world’s largest repository built to protect crops and plants from natural and man-made disasters.

The Scandinavian country announced on Monday the new investment, after melting permafrost caused by unseasonably warm temperatures risked flooding the vault last year.

The Norwegian government said that the upgrades will include a new concrete access tunnel and a service building to house “emergency power and refrigerating units and other electrical equipment that emits heat through the tunnel,” The Verge reported.

According to its official website, the vault requires a temperature of -18ºC “for optimal storage of the seeds.”

The Svalbard Global Seed Vault is located deep inside a mountain on a remote island in the Svalbard archipelago, roughly 620 miles from the North Pole. It was established in 2008, and serves as the primary backup for the world’s other seed banks.

“It is a great and important task to safeguard all the genetic material that is crucial to global food security,” Jon Georg Dale, Norway’s minister of agriculture and food, said in a statement.

The vault has a capacity for 4.5 million varieties of crops, with a maximum of 2.5 billion seeds. The seed vault currently holds more than 890,000 samples, which originate from nearly every country in the world.

With Hulu’s The Handmaid’s Tale set to return on Wednesday, fans of the Emmy-winning adaptation of Margaret Atwood’s novel will finally get to see what the Handmaids’ acts of resistance lead to next.

In the first season, as protagonist June (Elisabeth Moss) learned of the underground “Mayday” movement among her fellow Handmaids — fertile women essentially imprisoned as sex slaves in a society plagued by barrenness — viewers likewise learned that the dystopian near future in which the story is set was never without brave individuals pushing back against the ruling theocracy. The second season picks up after a wave of such acts (Alexis Bledel’s Emily having mowed down a soldier; June, also known as Offred, having led the Handmaids in refusing to stone to death one of their own) and takes the resistance to a new level of fearlessness.

Though the society of Gilead and its Handmaids system are fictional, Atwood made a point of drawing on real history when she crafted that world. So it’s no surprise that this ever-present resistance does have parallels in American history.

When the government has regulated women’s bodies and sexuality, they have fought back, says Scott W. Stern, whose new book The Trials of Nina McCall: Sex, Surveillance, and the Decades-Long Government Plan to Imprison “Promiscuous” Women zeroes in on one piece of that history.

Stern’s book focuses on the “American Plan,” one of the largest and longest quarantines in U.S. history. Under the plan, tens of thousands of women suspected of being promiscuous were incarcerated, just as women on The Handmaid’s Tale can be sent to labor camps for similar reasons. The mass imprisonment was justified on the grounds of ensuring national security during the two world wars by protecting the troops from sexually transmitted infections. In addition to being a time of military fear, the context for the plan was one in which women were pushing back against old restrictions. As more women in the early 20th century advocated for education and work and political rights, others worried that women would lose their way and succumb to indecency.

Detention facilities sprung up, specially designed to reform women suspected of committing vaguely defined moral crimes such as “vagrancy” and “disorderly conduct” through a paradoxical curriculum of physical labor and domestic arts. Stern says efforts to lock up women for suspected moral crimes was “a way of controlling women’s sexual agency [at] a time when women were banding together politically, beginning to get educated formally, and that was threatening to those in power, so this was really a way of controlling women — which is exactly what the whole Handmaids system is in the show.”

Inmates were largely forbidden from speaking to each other — an aspect of discipline that has direct parallels on The Handmaid’s Tale — because authorities “were really scared of women teaming up together, banding together for resistance,” Stern says. “There are records of government hearings where officials talked about [how] women aren’t allowed to talk to each other or smile at each other, except for a couple minutes a day, which is eerily and possibly unintentionally parallel.”

And yet the women still managed to fight back.

“In real female prisons — under the American plan and in women’s prisons in general — there were huge numbers of riots,” says Stern. “There were huge, truly mind-numbing numbers of women who escaped.”

In Seattle, there were stories of escapees covering guards in sheets, leaping out windows, breaking through plate glass, clogging toilets, destroying the sewing machines that had been installed for “vocational training” and refusing to go to breakfast. Inmates torched five of the 43 federally funded detention houses and reformatories that were housing women with STIs. City Farm of Houston burned down twice, while the one in Newport News, Va., burned down five months after opening its doors in 1919. A woman imprisoned under the American Plan in San Diego staged a three-day hunger strike in an effort to be released. More than 300 women imprisoned in Ponce, Puerto Rico, rioted and refused to take their mercury injections (an early treatment for some STIs). There were 80 escapes at the female-run detention facility known as “The Hospice” in Jacksonville, Fla., from 1919 to 1921, and one inmate per week broke out of the Alabama State Training School For Girls.

But, Stern says, there is one noteworthy difference between The Handmaid’s Tale and the real history of resistance to the American Plan.

Though the fictional Handmaids are drawn from all walks of life — the only qualification being their fertility — the primary rebels who are seen to be leading the charge are mostly college-educated, white women. (In fact, they are targets because of their level of education.) But in reality, the American Plan did not apply equally to all sectors of American society. The women who were targeted under the program were disproportionately non-white, working-class and immigrant. And those imprisoned during that time who actually did work in the sex industry did so in a labor market in which skin color could be a disqualifying factor from many other jobs.

Bearing that difference in mind in some ways only serves to underscore the link: the idea of imprisoning women over “promiscuity” appears on the show as well as in real life, and in both cases the women, regardless of education or privilege, are likely to fight back.

“The really big parallel between real life and show,” Stern says, “is the active resistance.”