IBM on Tuesday unveiled a global weather modeling system that will combine data from smartphones and aircraft to produce what it says will be hyper-accurate local forecasts.

The system, called the IBM Global High-Resolution Atmospheric Forecasting System, or GRAF, will create a one-day forecast updating every hour at a resolution of 3 kilometers, or about 1.9 miles — a notable upgrade for many parts of the world. The company is pitching GRAF as particularly useful in industries that depend on accurate short-term weather forecasting, like agriculture and transportation, and especially in developing nations with less sophisticated meteorological infrastructure.

“This is the first introduction of crowdsourced data, and to me, it’s really opening a new era equivalent to what happened when we got satellite data in the 1980s,” says Mary Glackin, VP of Weather Business Solutions at IBM. “Cell phone pressures are the start of this, but one could imagine data coming off of vehicles, smart buildings, even wearables doing into the future.”

GRAF forecasts will be created in part with location and atmospheric pressure data collected from smartphones running The Weather Channel app. (IBM acquired that app along with the rest of The Weather Company, minus the TV channel, in 2016.) That data collection will be opt-in, meaning IBM is betting that at least some of the world’s approximately 2.5 billion smartphone users will be willing to share with it some of their most sensitive information. That’s a gamble, especially at a time when many people are rethinking the amount of information they hand over to technology companies.

Indeed, there may be good reason to take pause. The City of Los Angeles on Thursday filed suit against The Weather Company, alleging that it shared and profited from information collected by The Weather Channel app. IBM has denied wrongdoing. “The Weather Company has always been transparent with use of location data; the disclosures are fully appropriate, and we will defend them vigorously,” the company said in a statement about the suit. Other weather apps have also faced questions over their handling of users’ location data.

Still, IBM won’t require that users submit data for crunching by GRAF to access the forecasts it creates; they will be available to all users across a range of the company’s websites and apps. And despite recent missteps by technology companies like Facebook, tech users have shown a willingness to trade their personal data for a service they deem worthwhile. Contributing to a better weather forecast could certainly fall into that category — so long as IBM is careful to treat users’ sensitive data with respect.

Fashion and technology has become a trend for the stylish set in recent years, with supermodel Karlie Kloss becoming a coding enthusiast and Hermès designing accessories for Apple, but Italian designers Dolce & Gabbana took fashionable tech to the next level when they sent drones down the runway to showcase handbags for their Fall/Winter 2018 fashion show in Milan, Italy.

The designers, who have made headlines of late for their outspoken political opinions, showed off ornate handbags on the catwalk that were held aloft by drones as opposed to models in a presentation that would not have been amiss in a storyline from Black Mirror. According to Fashionista, those attending the show were asked to turn off the Wi-Fi function and personal hotspots on their cellphones.

While runway models have often been the highlight of watching a live fashion show, it looks like Dolce & Gabbana is making a case for technology to replace “Insta-girls.”

See the drones in action below.

When an American man is reunited with a Dutch painting in a German town on Thursday, the international meeting will come after eight years of work to establish the proper ownership of the painting — and eight decades after it was confiscated by the Gestapo.

The work in question is Holländisches Platzbild, often translated as “View of a Dutch Square.” It’s a copy of a painting by the 17th century Dutch Baroque-era painter Jan van der Heyden; the original is held by the Louvre and the copy was perhaps made by the artist himself. Since 1963, it has hung in the building of the association for the Roman Catholic cathedral depicted in the painting, St. Victor’s, in the town of Xanten, in northwest Germany. The cathedral has an interesting link to the 20th century German past: Anti-Nazi German Bishop Clemens August Graf von Galen, whom the Nazis would accuse of sympathizing with “the corrupters of our race,” condemned Nazi racial laws in a 1936 speech there.

But that’s not the only link between the painting and that brutal chapter of history.

John Graykowski, 65, grew up hearing about his great-grandparents Gottlieb and Mathilde Kraus, who were part of Vienna’s Jewish elite. Photographs show them traveling in a chauffeured black limo, and their daughter Marie “Mitzi” Kraus meeting the current Queen Elizabeth II in the 1950s. Graykowski, a D.C. lawyer, had also heard his great-grandparents collected art, but had no idea how much they owned. When the family fled Vienna in the run-up to the Holocaust, that collection was left behind. Though his great-aunt told him the family had tried to track down some of the collection in the 1960s, they’d given up after not hearing back from the German government.

But around 2002, “completely out of the blue,” Graykowski and his uncle Alex Heingartner were contacted by an organization helping the Austrian government. Its mission was to implement a 1998 Austrian law that led to the creation of a commission for investigating the provenance of artworks owned the state and acquired during World War II. Six paintings that had been owned by Gottlieb and Mathilde Kraus had been recovered, they learned.

“All of a sudden, paintings that had been part of the ‘mythology’ of the family are alive and there’s hope. There’s a chance,” Graykowski recalls feeling back then.

Figuring there must be more, the family reached out in 2009 to a different organization, the London-based Commission for Looted Art in Europe, for help. Sure enough, after years of research, a seventh painting was confirmed: the “View of a Dutch Square.” But the search for that painting would raise even bigger questions that, even as Graykowski takes ownership of the work of art, remain to be fully answered.

The Looting Begins

Gottlieb and Mathilde Kraus once owned so many paintings — more than 160 — that, in 1923, their apartment had been opened to the public as a museum. But after Austria became part of Nazi Germany in 1938, a union known as the Anschluss, the Kraus family fled, leaving everything behind. Everything included the paintings, one of which was “View of a Dutch Square.” They would ultimately end up in Washington, D.C.; meanwhile, the Gestapo inventoried their apartment in October of 1940, and the art was stored with a shipping company in Vienna before being officially confiscated the following June.

About six months later, 12 of the family’s paintings were photographed for consideration for Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler’s planned museum in Linz, the Austrian city where he spent part of his childhood. But the painting “View of a Dutch Square” wasn’t bound for a museum. Rather, sales records show that it was purchased in July 1942 for about $1,000 Reichsmarks by Heinrich Hoffmann, Hitler’s photographer.

The painting was photographed again after the Allied officers found the Hoffmann collection in May 1945, and sent it to be inventoried at the Munich Central Collecting Point in Bavaria, one of the biggest collecting points set up by the “Monuments Men,” a special Allied unit of art experts who sorted through art confiscated during the war.

“Between August 1945 and May 1951, the Munich Central Collecting Point returned 463,000 paintings to the countries from which they had been taken,” according to the Commission for Looted Art in Europe. But the process didn’t stop there. The U.S. military transferred custodianship of more than 2,500 works of art from the collections of various Nazi leaders and organizations to Bavaria by the early 1950s for the purpose of restitution, and about 800 works were transferred to the Bavarian State Paintings Collection between 1953 and 1977.

The works in Hoffmann’s collection, numbering 278, were among those transferred to the Bavarian State. So, when the Commission for Looted Art in Europe identified “View of a Dutch Square” as a work that had belonged to Gottlieb and Mathilde Kraus, they knew where to look for it: the Bavarian State Paintings Collection archives.

When they went to look for it, however, the painting wasn’t there.

Lost and Found

According to documentation received by the Commission in 2011, the Bavarian State Paintings Collection had sold the painting in 1962 for 300 German Deutsche Marks. The buyer? Henriette Hoffmann-von Schirach, Heinrich Hoffmann’s daughter and the wife of Baldur von Schirach, the Hitler Youth leader who became the Nazi governor of Vienna and oversaw the deportation of the city’s Jews. Henriette, it turned out, had requested and was granted several works from her father’s collection. Her motivations for wanting to re-claim the painting are not clear. In fact, she has said that she stood up to Hitler about his persecution of the Jews at his home and was banned from his house.

And yet the next thing known about its whereabouts is that the Xanten cathedral’s building association paid 16,100 German Deutsche Marks (about $9,300 today) for the painting at an auction in Cologne in 1963.

This wasn’t a matter of just one painting. Between 2009 and 2011, the Commission for Looted Art in Europe discovered that Bavaria returned “many” paintings to the families of Nazi officials. Exactly how many remains unknown. “At the very time that the Kraus family and many families who had survived the Holocaust were making claims for that property and being told that no one knew where their property was,” Anne Webber, Founder and Co-Chair of the Commission for Looted Art in Europe, tells TIME, “their art was being handed back to the families of these Nazi war criminals.”

In 2011, Graykowski made an official claim on the painting. Five years later, the Commission — frustrated, Webber says, by the difficulty of getting official answers on the “return sales” — went public with the news, which was first reported by Süddeutsche Zeitung, one of the largest daily newspapers in Germany. (The Bavarian State Ministry for Education, Culture, Science and Arts and a descendant of Henriette Hoffmann-von Schirach did not return requests for comment, though in the past Bavarian officials have disagreed with suggestions that the state is not fully cooperating with restitution efforts.) Ronald Lauder, President of the World Jewish Congress, said at the time that the research was “absolutely shocking” and that “If the allegations prove to be as severe as presented, it is one of the most scandalous incidents related to the subject to date.” The German Lost Art Foundation, which receives funding from the German government, has a database that lists more than 70 works of art that were in the Bavarian State Paintings Collection that were returned to families of top Nazi leaders, including six paintings to the family of Heinrich Hoffmann.

After a Bavarian Parliament committee called for a full report on artworks Bavaria may have sold back to Nazi families, a report published in October 2016 by the office of the Bavarian Culture Minister explained that provenance research had been going on since 2012 and that, as of July 2016, a little less than half of the 890 artworks transferred to Bavarian State Paintings had been researched. Of those, a little more than half had been marked as “under suspicion of having been looted.”

The German Lost Art Foundation says it has helped the von Schirach family trace Henriette von Schirach’s efforts to regain her father’s collection after the war, and found that she got 118 objects back by presenting sales records for them. Of those, 92 were simply given back to her, and 26 she bought back. “Most of the cultural objects she resold later, in some cases with a large profit margin,” the organization told TIME in a Mar. 21 statement. A full report on the findings, funded by the family, is due this spring.

Victims of Nazi Theft Find Hope

Awareness of the fact that Nazis stole art from Jewish families is high these days, thanks to Hollywood movies and headline-worthy finds, but the restitution process remains long and complicated. After an initial burst of returns around the time of the end of the war, media attention faded as many survivors made an effort to put the war behind them, says Lynn H. Nicholas, author of The Rape of Europa: The Fate of Europe’s Treasures in the Third Reich and the Second World War. With the Cold War shifting focus away from Germany toward Russia, and few global governments willing to make a big fuss over privately-owned art, the process essentially paused.

An estimated 600,000 paintings are believed to have been stolen during the war and 100,000 remain missing, Stuart Eizenstat, an adviser to the U.S. Department of State on restitution issues, said recently.

Several factors came together in the 1990s that reinvigorated the efforts to return Nazi-looted art, from the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II to the scandal over whether Swiss banks profited off Nazi-looted gold. Critically, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the reunification of Germany led to the opening up of intelligence records that hadn’t been previously available for other restitution issues.

In 1998, 44 nations agreed to the non-binding Washington Conference Principles on Nazi-Confiscated Art (more commonly known as the Washington Principles), vowing to identify artworks that might be looted, to publish lists so that families could recover them and to work toward “just and fair solutions.” A year later, Anne Webber, a British filmmaker who’d made a documentary about looted art, founded the non-profit organization Commission for Looted Art in Europe, as a clearinghouse for information on the topic and home to a team of investigators who could help families negotiate restitution settlements. Since its establishment 20 years ago, the organization has recovered more than 3,500 objects on behalf of families.

The Internet has also helped possible heirs find resources more easily, and has created more opportunities for these connections to be made. For example, the genealogy website MyHeritage told TIME that last fall it notified eight families that they are descendants of original owners of works of art that appear on a Dutch Museum Associations list of about 170 artworks considered “likely to have been stolen, confiscated or sold under duress between 1933 and 1945.” The families had no idea about the lists, and some didn’t know they were even descendants of the owners of these works of art.

In the case of the painting of the Xanten cathedral, Gestapo account books, combined with sales records for and photographs of the painting, proved that the artwork belonged to Graykowski’s family.

But because the Washington Principles are not legally binding, the laws about claiming art varies by country. Hans-Wilhelm Barking, chairman of the Dombauverein Xanten, the non-profit society for the Xanten cathedral’s preservation, made that point in a joint press release published Thursday with the Commission for Looted Art, noting his organization was returning the painting voluntarily: “I ask for your understanding that I have certain difficulties to speak of a ‘return’ of the painting. This term may imply that the [cathedral society] may not have acquired the painting lawfully and may not have become the lawful owner. I therefore prefer the term ‘surrender,’ which is done voluntarily in recognition of the Nazi injustice.”

The Painting Returned, Now What?

Graykowski would agree that the subject of Nazi-looted art is not really a matter of what’s legal. Restitution is about what’s moral, he says. “This was my family’s property,” he says. “It was stolen. I want it back. A very simple construct.”

He believes the process would go faster if governments paid private individuals or organizations for returning looted art in their possession. But it isn’t really about the money, either. A 2017 appraisal showed the painting of the Dutch square was worth about $5,000, but he says he’s been looking into bringing things full circle by donating it to the Jewish museum in Vienna.

And now it’s on to finding the other 160 paintings.

“I told my son, who is 29,” he says, “you’ll have to continue this.”

Actor Eddie Redmayne, who played renowned physicist Stephen Hawking in 2014’s The Theory of Everything, offered a touching tribute to the late scientist, who died Wednesday at age 76.

“We have lost a truly beautiful mind, an astonishing scientist and the funniest man I have ever had the pleasure to meet,” Redmayne said in a statement provided to Deadline. “My love and thoughts are with his extraordinary family.”

Redmayne met Hawking just five days before he began shooting his Oscar-winning portrayal of the legendary physicist and bestselling author, who was diagnosed with ALS at age 21, but still went on to become one of the world’s best-known and most beloved scientific minds while battling the neurodegenerative disease for more than 50 years. Hawking later praised Redmayne’s turn in the film.

“Well done Eddie,” Hawking wrote on Facebook after Redmayne’s 2015 Oscar win. “I’m very proud of you.”

On a rainy morning in the Mission neighborhood of San Francisco, women are filing through the arched doors of a old Greek church carrying bike helmets and laptops. Instead of a tithe, the price for their admission to this sanctuary is $250 per month. There won’t be sermons inside, but there is $3 kombucha and restorative yoga and a pumping room proudly decorated with drawings of breasts. There are also tenets that bind members typing away in the chic “female-forward” space upstairs. It’s not a “traditional” coworking space, says Molly Goodson, founder of a new women-only club called The Assembly. “Really it’s all built around women and self-care.”

The Assembly is one of many spaces popping up across the country that cater to particular types of workers, whether it’s women or LGBTQ individuals or so-called ganjapreneurs. As the coworking industry has matured, “niche” locations that don’t intend to be for everyone have flourished. And, in an era when relying on digital connections can make us feel isolated, workers who might not even join a traditional coworking hub are flocking to them, not only for practical reasons, but also to feel less alone.

“It’s incredibly empowering to be in a space where you know everybody here is hustling through their own thing, as women,” says Myisha Battle, a sex coach who is among the Assembly’s roughly 200 members. “Women are often isolated on teams and you’re made to feel like you’re vying for similar positions,” Battle adds, “whereas this feels like leveling the playing field a little bit.” It’s a sentiment with currency among the couple hundred more women who are waiting to get in.

In the last decade, coworking has morphed from a trend into an international industry, with venture capitalists pouring billions into the sector and dominant players like WeWork hoovering up real estate around the world. By 2022, five million people will be working out of more than 30,000 coworking spaces – one million of them in the U.S. – according to estimates from Emergent Research. While these places must offer the bare necessities (Internet, desk, outlet), what really defines them is that they blend work and social life in ways that can’t happen when workers and companies are walled off from one another. That social aspect might take the form of meetups, guest lectures or trainings. Coworking spaces might offer cooking classes or childcare. And the more tailored the membership, the more specific that programming can be.

Founders are heralding the new crop of specialized spaces as a means of fighting the a loneliness epidemic in the U.S. But some membership restrictions are also raising legal questions, suggesting that the end result could also be making our siloed existences even worse. The New York Human Rights Commission recently launched an inquiry into a women-only club called The Wing after media reports highlighted the fact that men were excluded, a practice that could be in violation of a local sex discrimination law. Even if it’s understandable that women would want rooms of their own, these clubs are “bumping up against laws” meant to protect them, says ACLU Senior Staff Attorney Galen Sherwin. Though the coworking context is new, she says, “historically there have been challenges to these types of spaces.”

There is a simple, powerful reason the coworking movement has such momentum: money. Steve King, a partner at Emergent Research, describes the consumer appeal in waves. The first was demand from freelancers who didn’t want to do all their business from home or a coffee shop filled with distractions. The second was startups who would rather rent space by the desk than commit to an expensive lease. The third, he says, is large enterprises like GE and Microsoft becoming tenants in coworking towers, sending their employees to hubs that are more flexible than a dedicated office and, often, more fun for individual workers. (Such clients are also stable renters for the coworking businesses, relative to startups that might quickly grow out of coworking or cease to exist entirely.)

The mass appeal has created an incentive for new coworking spaces to get specific, even within the startup world. Nick Jiang, co-founder of a new San Francisco-based coworking company called Birdnest, argues that the sense of camaraderie at the more established chains has become fractured and “cookie cutter.” For early-stage companies, the appeal has been not just free beer or ping-pong tables, but a sense of shared struggle, he says. Jiang believes being surrounded by established companies makes that struggle feel more acute instead of less. In a sign of just how ubiquitous the trend is getting, Birdnest’s model is convincing restaurants that are only open for dinner to rent out their tables to coworkers during the day. Jiang hopes their price point — $74 versus a typical $350 per month or more — will appeal to very early-stage entrepreneurs for whom “every single cent counts.”

Economic hardship can be bonding, as can the perils of working in a certain industry or coming from a certain demographic. When asked why he is planning to open a coworking space called Serif for LGBTQ professionals in New York City (following a scrapped plan to open up one called Yass in San Francisco), Brian Tran recalls the pains of growing up as a young gay man in Texas. “What media and society showed me were bars and clubs,” he says of places where queer people congregate. He believes a coworking space will allow people to build more “substantial connections” and plans to host events like legal workshops where lawyers help transgender people change their identification documents. “It’s really just creating a space where people can give back to their younger selves,” Tran says.

Tran also describes apps as one of the insufficient means for LGBTQ people to connect. While the Internet has been a game-changer for LGBTQ people seeking answers and empathy, interfaces still aren’t a replacement for physical proximity. King, the research firm partner, has argued that the coworking boom is as much about humans’ social nature as it is about flexibility or cost-savings. The efforts to gather and be productive take countless forms these days: workspaces at rock climbing gyms, shared biolabs, people offering up their living rooms.

Nick Devane runs a company called Pilotworks, which rents out shared commercial kitchens in multiple U.S. cities where aspirational bakers and food-delivery startups can commune. There’s an financial need: setting up your own commercial kitchen as a budding entrepreneur is expensive and risky. But while people may come for the infrastructure, Devane says they stay for the solidarity. “People are striving and growing and contracting, and the support those companies provide to one another is tremendous,” he says. “It’s what keeps our members from failing.” He cites the example of two bakers, who should be competitors, opting to share flour. “There’s a natural clustering effect,” Devane says, “just a desire to transfer ideas.”

Some have even posited that coworking spots are like America’s new churches, giving young people a regular spot to gather as places of worship have in the past. After all, religion is often about shared struggle too, and efforts that coworking spaces are making to help members with pursuits like “self-actualization” are in line with the millennial ethos. “These days being a good human means being productive and contributing,” Devane says, “and living your life’s work.” A job is supposed to be meaningful, whatever it might pay.

Angie Thurston, a ministry innovation fellow at Harvard Divinity School, has researched the modern manifestations of our tribal needs, in a time when people are “less and less affiliated.” She was recently invited to a coworking conference to speak about these very parallels. “There’s such an acute need for community, for a sense of purpose,” she says. “A coworking space becomes something much more than a place to sit and work and not be alone.”

Take The Coven, a new coworking space in Minneapolis that limits membership to women and non-binary individuals (those who may not identify as a man or a woman). After raising about $315,000 through crowdfunding, they had 230 members join in the first four weeks. For $200 a month, The Coven provides the basics, plus things ranging from a prayer room for Muslim members to bathrooms with “an overflow of free pads and tampons,” says cofounder Bethany Iverson. Key among the offerings are events, which revolve around monthly themes like empowerment and body positivity. “There’s not one thing that we’re hammering home,” says cofounder Erinn Farrell, other than “being your whole self.” It may not be religion, but it is a shared vision of how one should live.

Iverson and Farrell come from advertising and say they got frustrated while working to make the local industry more inclusive. “What if instead of trying to create change within our agencies,” Iverson recalls them thinking, “we just went and built a totally new world?” The team makes no apologies about their decision to exclude men from this utopia. Nearly every other space “is a male-first space,” Iverson says. They know that some “men’s rights” advocates are up in arms about the proliferation of women-focused efforts, be it a club or a movie screening, but they say such a response only goes to show their “fear of scarcity and losing power.”

While most coworking niches cause little ruckus, some are questioning whether these women-only spaces are being fair. With revelations about workplace harassment still ringing in America’s ears, it makes sense that some women view these spaces as working to remedy discrimination. The hard part is that, while private clubs are legally able to reject applicants who don’t fit certain criteria, exclusion gets dicey when organizations appear public-facing. “Everyone is grappling with the questions raised by the fact that there’s this need these spaces are filling,” says the ACLU’s Sherwin, who works on the organization’s women’s rights project.

The founders of The Coven say they have been legally advised that they fit the definition of a private club. But that doesn’t mean every women-only club will pass the same test. In past cases, courts have found that clubs that thought or said they were private – as The Wing has – were in fact public, thus subjecting them to the same laws that forbid businesses from discriminating based on characteristics like race, sex or religion. That distinction can turn on factors like the number of members, whether the business is trying to make a profit, and whether non-members have access to the site.

Defenders of The Wing have rallied behind the notion that women deserve to isolate themselves if they want to, given the treatment they endure. Others have argued that excluding people based on their sex is a bad practice, however justified it might feel. The ACLU has suggested The Wing “may not be in compliance” with New York’s local discrimination law, which also bans many private clubs from discriminating based on gender. But Sherwin notes that these new quasi-offices also raise “untested legal questions.” It’s possible that the debate will eventually have to play out in court.

In the meantime, women at places like The Assembly will be reveling in their haven, decorated with cacti and stained-glass windows, like some desert oasis in the middle of the city. There is a sense among some members that the very existence of the place is evening a score. “I’m a feminist, so what appealed most to me was working in a space alongside women who were interested in networking in a way that we think of as typically masculine, this clubhouse idea,” says Battle, the sex coach, as she sits on a bench inside The Assembly’s lofty main room. “Historically,” she adds, “women have been on the outside of that.”

Some Amazon Alexa users were met with deafening silence Friday, with the voice-controlled digital assistant going down across the U.S. According to Downdetector.com, a website that monitors technology outages and service interruptions, issues with Alexa began after 9:30 a.m. EST.

Users reported issues with Alexa’s voice recognition service on either Amazon Echo devices or third party electronics that run Alexa, reports The Verge. However, users were able to access the digital assistant through Alexa app, notes TechCrunch.

The outage appears to be impacting fewer people than earlier in the day, according to Downdetector.com. However, those with mute virtual assistants have been forced to perform mundane tasks like turn on lights, look up the weather, play music, or call friends the old-fashioned way.

The outage has evoked comparisons Amazon’s Super Bowl ad in which the digital assistant looses its voice and is replaced by less-than-helpful celebrities. But instead getting the voice of celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay, comedian Leslie Jones, or actress Rebel Wilson like in the ad, they have been treated to either silence or messages saying “I’m not sure what went wrong,” or “sorry, something went wrong.”

TIME reached out to Amazon for more information about the outage, and will update with more information as necessary.

Donald Daters, a new dating app for Trump supporters, has leaked users’ personal information on the day of its launch.

The app, which markets itself as an “American-based singles community connecting lovers, friends, and Trump supporters alike,” had more than 1,600 users when it launched on Monday, according to security researcher Elliot Alderson, who was reportedly able to download the entire user database.

Alderson shared his findings in a tweet, stating that the data he managed to gain access to included users’ names, profile pictures, device types, private messages and access tokens that can be used to log into their accounts.

The Donald Daters app was founded by Emily Moreno—a former aide to Sen. Marco Rubio—who confirmed the leak on Tuesday.

“We have taken swift and decisive action to remedy the mistake and make all possible efforts to prevent this from happening again,” she said, according to TechCrunch. “Out of an abundance of caution, we have temporarily suspended the chat service on the app while we implement new security protocols. We are also taking immediate steps to engage a leading, independent cybersecurity firm to pressure test the system to ensure it is secure against other vulnerabilities.”

Some educators are up in arms over a recent proposal by the College Board to begin the AP World History exam’s scope in 1450 instead of the dawn of civilization. In justifying the move, the College Board cited the daunting amount of material that the course previously covered, beginning with early humans’ migration from Africa during the Paleolithic period.

Should the new curriculum go into effect, it may require an amendment to a storied elementary school mnemonic: “In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue—42 years after the dawn of history.” (Christopher Columbus was born in 1451, just making the cut for the new exam.)

To capture how much of history would go untested after such a change, TIME compiled a list of the 200 most influential individuals in documented history. Our group is based on top-100 lists from TIME’s previous rankings, a highly cited roster by the astrophysicist Michael H. Hart, and the MIT Pantheon project. Based on dates of birth gathered from WikiData, we found that 40% of the most influential people in history were born before the new AP World History cutoff.

The curtailment would eliminate the first three eras in the present course, which cover “technological and environmental transformations” up to 600 B.C.E., “organization and reorganization of human societies” until 600 C.E. and “regional and interregional interactions” until 1450, when the focus shifts to “global interactions.” Doing so would gloss past all Greek philosophers, ancient empires, and the founder of most major religions save for Mormonism progenitor Joseph Smith, Jr.

When announcing the idea, the College Board stated that “the current AP World History course and exam cover 10,000 years of history across all seven continents. No other AP course requires such an expanse of content to be covered over a single school year.” Instead, the company proposes a “pre-AP” high school course in World History and Geography.

Critics have been quick to point out that beginning in 1450 would shift the course’s focus heavily to Western history. “They couldn’t have picked a more Eurocentric date,” World History Association president Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks told The New York Times. As for here at home, the cutoff would only exacerbate the entrenched misconception that Europeans brought modernism to a New World that was in fact a hotbed of culture and innovation long before Cortes and Columbus walked the earth.

The focus would also shift toward modern technological advancements over the cultural and philosophical foundations of modernity. TIME’s categorization of the list into major categories like “artists” and “scientists” — which were often judgment calls when topics like religion and philosophy overlapped — includes only two inventors in the pre-1450 crowd: Cai Lun, the Chinese innovator credited with inventing paper, and Johannes Gutenberg, who put that paper to new use some 1,300 years later. (Archimedes was a tough call but ended up in the “scientist” category, though he is equally deserving of the “inventor” distinction.)

Euclid was unavailable for comment.

Correction: June 26

The original version of this story misstated the approximate birth year of Mary. It is approximately 18 B.C.E., not 101 B.C.E.

(SAN FRANCISCO) — The Wall Street Journal reports that the National Enquirer’s publisher paid $200,000 to obtain intimate texts between Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos and his mistress Lauren Sanchez. American Media Inc., the supermarket tabloid’s publisher, reportedly paid that sum to Michael Sanchez, Lauren’s brother.

The Journal’s finding, attributed to people familiar with the matter, parallels the conclusion reached by private investigators working for Bezos as of early February. Those investigators reportedly found that Michael Sanchez had leaked the texts to the Enquirer, although they didn’t appear to conclude who might have paid for them.

Bezos has said AMI threatened to publish explicit photos of him unless he stopped investigating how the Enquirer obtained his private exchanges and publicly declared that the Enquirer’s coverage of him was not politically motivated.

Apple is revising its recently-added bagel emoji after an outcry from breakfast-loving users who say the previous version suffered from a lack of cream cheese or butter and appeared to be under-baked.

The change, first spotted by Emojipedia founder Jeremy Burge, is set to become available in Apple’s iOS 12.1 update.

The move is sure to please users who said Apple’s original bagel emoji looked dry and unappetizing.

While new emojis are approved by the non-profit Unicode Consortium, individual tech companies have some leeway in how they visualize each character on their respective platforms. Apple and some other tech companies have, for instance, changed the “gun” emoji from a symbol of a handgun to a representation of a water pistol.

Apple’s morning-meal misstep follows a similar controversy involving Google, which was lambasted over the placement of various layers in its cheeseburger emoji. And earlier this year, Google removed the hard-boiled eggs from its salad emoji on some Android phones in a bid to portray a more vegan-inclusive dish. Not everyone was pleased with the attempt, with some asking Google to remove everything but the empty bowl for true inclusivity.