A previously unknown “supercolony” of more than 1.5 million penguins has been discovered by scientists in the Danger Islands, a chain of nine islands located off the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula.

Professors from Stony Brook University in New York say they discovered the enormous colony of Adélie Penguins, which live on the Antarctic continent, when they noticed the penguins’ feces, or guano, in NASA satellite imagery of the islands. Before the discovery, experts believed that the total population of Adélie Penguins was on the decline.

After heading to the remote island in December 2015 to investigate, the professors, along with a seabird ecologist from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) in Massachusetts and other experts, said they found hundreds of thousands of birds nesting in the rocky soil.

The team proceeded to count the number of birds by hand and used a modified commercial quadcopter drone to take images of the entire island from above, to help locate penguin nests that have gone undetected for decades. They counted 751,527 pairs of penguins in total.

Having an accurate idea of the number of penguins in the supercolony will help the team notice any future changes, researchers say, particularly in terms of climate change affecting the region. It will also help them understand why there are more penguins on the eastern side of the Antarctic Peninsula than the western side.

“We want to understand why. Is it linked to the extended sea ice condition over there? Food availability? That’s something we don’t know,” said Stephanie Jenouvrier, a seabird ecologist at WHOI, in a press release.

The findings of the investigation were published in the journal Scientific Reports, in a report which describes the Danger Islands as a “seabird hotspot.”

This Tuesday marks 20 years since Mar. 27, 1998, when the FDA approved Viagra as the first oral treatment for erectile dysfunction. Since the diamond-shaped blue pill hit the market, it has generated at least $17 billion in the U.S., Bloomberg reported in Dec. 2017.

In the drug’s earliest days, demand was so great that urologists bought rubber stamps so they could churn out prescriptions — as many as 10,000 scripts a day when it first launched, according to TIME’s May 1998 cover story on the drug’s social impact. Its instant success was a “lucky accident,” as the magazine put it, given that Pfizer scientists discovered the drug by accident in the ’80s, when, while researching a treatment for chest pain, they saw that the compound with which they were experimenting was increasing blood flow to the penis instead of the heart.

The drug was a breakthrough as a quick and painless way to treat erectile dysfunction (ED) — a condition that, until then, had limited treatments that ranged from unpleasant and strange (the surgical attachment of slivers of goat testicle to the patient’s body) to poisonous (strychnine, once marketed as “Nature Energizer Pep Tablets for Married Men & Women”).

TIME’s cover story featured some memorable reactions from patients who remarked on how revolutionary the drug was. A 55-year-old man in St. Petersburg, Fla. described it as “a little package of dynamite.” But, outside of the realm of the doctor’s office, those who closely watched the pill’s release often took a more theoretical interest.

On one end of the spectrum, sex therapist Dr. Ruth Westheimer was quoted by the magazine worrying that the pill wouldn’t help couples unless it were accompanied by “an education process” to add what she called sexual literacy to its physiological effects. (But if such literacy did increase, she noted, it could be great news for millions of American grandparents.)

On the other hand, some expected the pill to create a major change on its own. The editor of Penthouse magazine, Bob Guccione — who blamed feminism for having “emasculated the American male” and putting too much pressure on men — expected Viagra to “undercut the feminist agenda” by removing that pressure, and thus “free the American male libido.” Writer Gay Talese pointed to the rush on Viagra as evidence that sexual potency was key to “men’s self-worth,” no matter how much society tried to tamp it down.

Meanwhile, the social critic Camille Paglia said that she wanted men to “really re-examine why they need this pill” in light of the idea that if modern men couldn’t perform sexually “they’re going to evolve themselves right out of the human species.”

One thing that hasn’t changed between then and now is concern about who’s taking Viagra, why and what it does to them. One Stanford study that TIME reported on three years later suggested that the little blue pill might be much less magical than its initial reception implied: in the study, ED was more effectively treated with a combination of medication and therapy than by medication alone.

But the idea that a pill might solve such a problem remains tempting, Meika Loe, author of The Rise of Viagra: How The Little Blue Pill Changed Sex in America, told TIME in an email reflecting on the 20th anniversary. In her research, she said, she’s seen men who carrying the pill around with them in order to bolster their confidence, and a generation of people who hope to quickly do away with a problem that has complicated mental, physical and social connections.

“Viagra marks the start of the marketing of sexual dysfunction as a social and individual problem, and one to be solved by medicine. This commercial effort plays off the ubiquitous sexual insecurities we feel in society, and promotes a quick fix for the problem,” she said. “What this leaves us with is a pill with a physiological effect that may or may not solve anything because we are not treating the whole body, the whole relationship, or looking critically at social ideals about masculinity and sexuality.”

Today, though the word “Viagra” can still summon a range of ideas as varied as they were in 1998, prescriptions are down more than 20% since 2012, per the Washington Post. Price hikes made it less affordable than it had been, and the drug has faced competition from similar drugs such as Cialis and Levitra, and now Pfizer has rolled out a generic version in the United States. But, even if the name-brand drug is no longer the market force it once was, there’s no question that its impact on two decades of conversation about modern sex has been, as one user put it when discussing the drug’s effects in 1998, “absolutely incredible.”

The fallout from Facebook’s data scandal involving Cambridge Analytica continues this week, as more information came to light confirming that at least 87 million Facebook users were impacted by hidden data harvesting — an update from the “tens of millions” figure that Facebook previously said were touched by its ongoing privacy crisis.

Facebook, which is the largest social media company in the world, admitted today that the number was much higher than previously believed at the bottom of a blog post written by Chief Technology Officer Mike Schroepfer.

“In total, we believe the Facebook information of up to 87 million people — mostly in the US — may have been improperly shared with Cambridge Analytica,” he wrote.

He laid out nine ways Facebook is now working on to better protect user information, saying that the changes will limit the ways apps are allowed to collect and share people’s information.

Third party apps will now be restricted from accessing certain kinds of user information they could previously collect from Facebook features like Events, Groups and Pages. Other changes include updates to the ways third-party apps can collect data related to logins for things like “check-ins, likes, photos, posts, videos, events and groups,” the company’s statement reads.

It also says that apps will no longer be allowed to collect personal data such as “religious or political views, relationship status and details, custom friends lists, education and work history, fitness activity, book reading activity, music listening activity, news reading, video watch activity, and games activity.”

The social media juggernaut also announced that it has disabled certain features in “search and account recovery” to prevent people’s public profiles from being scraped by “malicious actors.” It is also completely shutting down its Partner Categories, which is “a product that lets third-party data providers offer their targeting directly on Facebook,” the statement says.

A new feature is also being added to everyone’s newsfeed — a link at the top of the page that will allow users to see what information apps they use have collected about them, and also allow users to remove those apps if they choose. Facebook pledged to alert those users whose personal data was improperly collected by Cambridge Analytica.

Facebook also posted a link to updated policies for Instagram, which it owns.

While the users affected are mainly in the U.S., the BBC has also reported that about one million of the 87 million users impacted are based in the U.K.

Facebook’s announcement that almost 90 million users were affected comes on the heels of the news that CEO Mark Zuckerberg will testify before Congress on April 11.

The drama began when the $500 billion company admitted earlier in March that data analysis firm Cambridge Analytica, which has close ties to President Trump’s election campaign and right-leaning megadonors, used data that had been collected from millions of users without their consent. Facebook has since suspended Cambridge Analytica’s access to its platform.

Facebook continues to take a beating from commentators and investors alike as its stock keeps plunging — the company’s market cap dropped $50 billion alone during first week that the scandal came to light, becoming its largest ever two-day drop. Meanwhile, lawmakers in the U.S. and the U.K. who demanded Zuckerberg explain his company’s practices may finally get some answers during his testimony next week.

Here’s what to know about Facebook’s latest crisis.

What is Cambridge Analytica?

Cambridge Analytica is a political analysis firm that claims to build psychological profiles of voters to help its clients win elections. The company is accused of buying millions of Americans’ data from a researcher who told Facebook he was collecting it strictly for academic purposes. Facebook allowed Aleksandr Kogan, a psychology professor at the University of Cambridge who owns a company called Global Science Research, to harvest data from users who downloaded his app. The problem was that Facebook users who agreed to give their information to Kogan’s app also gave up permission to harvest data on all their Facebook friends, as well, according to the Guardian.

The breach occurred when Kogan then sold this data to Cambridge Analytica, which is against Facebook’s rules. Facebook says it has since changed the way it allows researchers to collect data from the platform as a result.

Christopher Wylie, a whistleblower who worked at Cambridge Analytica before quitting in 2014, claimed on NBC’s Today Show Monday morning that the firm was “founded on misappropriated data of at least 50 million Facebook users.”

Wylie added that Cambridge Analytica’s goal was to establish profiling algorithms that would “allow us to explore mental vulnerabilities of people, and then map out ways to inject information into different streams or channels of content online so that people started to see things all over the place that may or may not have been true.”

The data firm initially told British Parliament it did not collect people’s information without their content during a hearing in February, but later admitted in a statement to the New York Times that they did in fact obtain the data, though the company claims to have deleted the information as soon as it found out it violated Facebook’s privacy rules.

Cambridge Analytica issued a number of press releases in the days following the explosive media reports, saying that it “strongly denies the claims” it acted improperly.

“In 2014 we received Facebook data and derivatives of Facebook data from another company, GSR, that we engaged in good faith to legally supply data for research,” the statement reads. “After it subsequently became known that GSR had broken its contract with Cambridge Analytica because it had not adhered to data protection regulation, Cambridge Analytica deleted all the Facebook data and derivatives, in cooperation with Facebook… This Facebook data was not used by Cambridge Analytica as part of the services it provided to the Donald Trump presidential campaign.”

Facebook also issued a statement on its website Monday saying that the claim there was a data breach is “completely false” and Facebook users “gave their consent” when they signed up for certain kinds of apps, like the one Kogan exploited for data collection purposes. The social media juggernaut also maintained that “no systems were infiltrated, and no passwords or sensitive pieces of information were stolen or hacked.”

Who is the Cambridge Analytica whistleblower?

Christopher Wylie, a former employee of Cambridge Analytica, spoke out about the firm’s practices on the Today Show Monday morning after previously giving an interview to the New York Times. Wylie, who quit the company in 2014, said he believes it’s important for Americans to know what companies are doing with their personal information, as well as whether Cambridge Analytica’s practices influenced the democratic process.

“This was a company [Cambridge Analytica] that really took fake news to the next level by powering it with algorithms,” he said in an interview on the Today Show Monday morning.

Wylie also claimed that Cambridge Analytica has been in talks with Russian oil companies and employs a psychologist who works on Russia-funded projects. Any ties between Cambridge and Russia could complicate matters for Facebook, which has spent the past several months grappling with accusations that Moscow used it and other social media networks to meddle in the 2016 U.S. elections.

In a statement, Cambridge Analytica said Wylie left the company to found a rival firm.

“Their source is a former contractor for Cambridge Analytica – not a founder as has been claimed – who left in 2014 and is misrepresenting himself and the company throughout his comments,” the company said.

What is Cambridge Analytica’s connection to Steve Bannon?

Onetime Trump campaign advisor and Former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon was previously vice president of Cambridge Analytica’s board, according to the New York Times. Wylie told the Guardian that Bannon was his boss at Cambridge Analytica. Bannon has been involved in propping up right-wing political groups for years, having been the executive chairman and co-founder of Breitbart News, a far right-wing digital publication, until he stepped down from the position in January.

Additionally, Republican megadonor and onetime Breitbart News CEO Robert Mercer, who has funded numerous conservative campaigns at every level of government, invested $15 million in Cambridge Analytica. His daughter, Rebekah Mercer was also a board member of the political data firm. The Mercers originally supported Ted Cruz’ presidential campaign, but became patrons of the Trump campaign after Cruz bowed out of the 2016 presidential race.

The Times reported that through their family foundation the Mercer’s have donated more than $100 million to conservative causes — $10 million of which went to Breitbart News, and another $6 million that went to the Government Accountability Institute, a nonprofit founded by Bannon.

What does Mark Zuckerberg say?

Facebook executives responded to the crisis on Wednesday by issuing statements on the social media platform.

Zuckerberg admitted that Facebook made mistakes and acknowledged that his company failed to responsibly protect the data of customers.

He gave a timeline explaining how the improper data harvesting occurred, and said that in 2014 the company changed its practices to limit the ability of “abusive apps” to collect data from users and their other Facebook friends who did not give consent.

“In 2007, we launched the Facebook Platform with the vision that more apps should be social…To do this, we enabled people to log into apps and share who their friends were and some information about them….In 2013, a Cambridge University researcher named Aleksandr Kogan created a personality quiz app. It was installed by around 300,000 people who shared their data as well as some of their friends’ data. Given the way our platform worked at the time this meant Kogan was able to access tens of millions of their friends’ data.”

Zuckerberg also acknowledged that journalists informed Facebook as early as 2015 that Kogan shared this data with Cambridge Analytica, and said the company subsequently banned Kogan’s apps from the social network because they violated Facebook policies.

“This was a breach of trust between Kogan, Cambridge Analytica and Facebook. But it was also a breach of trust between Facebook and the people who share their data with us and expect us to protect it. We need to fix that,” he wrote on Facebook.

He also said the company will investigate all apps that had “access to large amount of information” before the 2014 policy changes, and that Facebook plans to further restrict developers’ access to Facebook users’ data moving forward. The company will also make it easier for users to deny permission to third party developers that collect their personal information. As part of this effort, the company plans to move its privacy tool to the top of the News Feed.

Facebook’s Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg shared Zuckerberg’s post on her own Facebook page, saying she “deeply regrets” that the company did not do more to address the problem. Facebook will also start to ban developers who misuse “personally identifiable information” and alert users when Facebook learns their data has been misused, she wrote.

The last year has proven to be a transformational one for women in the workplace.

Starting last October, women (and men) in industries around the country began coming forward with stories of sexual harassment and and assault in the workplace following a slew of allegations against film producer Harvey Weinstein — driving greater awareness to the #MeToo movement and creating initiatives like Time’s Up. Now, companies are scrambling to clear house of employees who have used their power to sexually harass or assault their colleagues — and, in some cases, have replaced the ousted men with women.

But dismissing bad eggs doesn’t fix the culture that enabled them. On Equal Pay Day 2018, which falls on April 10, women still earned $0.80 on the dollar compared to their male counterparts — and that pay gap is more pronounced for women of color. Executives and workplace leaders cite power as the key dynamic that can lead to the sexual harassment and targeting of employees — and money, as some say, is power.

Though the average amount a woman makes compared to her male colleague hasn’t shift much in recent years, change is afoot. Cities across the country have passed laws banning companies from asking prospective employees their salary histories — a move equal pay advocates say will help end the perpetuation of the gender wage gap and create a more even playing field. Advocates have also encouraged companies to provide greater transparency with their payrolls, giving women the chance to better leverage themselves in salary negotiations and hold companies accountable. And having more diverse and female leaderships on boards and in C-suite positions could help advance these culture and policy shifts.

Still, estimates from the Institute for Women’s Policy Research show the pay gap won’t be closed for women until at least 2059 — and not until 2233 for Hispanic women and 2124 for black women. In recent months, companies like Starbucks and Adobe have announced they’ve reached pay parity. But there’s still a long road ahead for universal equal pay.

Ahead of Equal Pay Day, TIME spoke with 10 powerful female leaders and executives about their thoughts on equal pay and what is next for an issue that can’t quite seem to go away. Here’s what they said.

Kimberly Churches

President and CEO of the American Association for University Women

On how equal pay relates to other workplace challenges women face: I really look at this as a Venn diagram: sexual harassment in the workplace, eliminating the pay gap and ensuring the leadership gap is filled. It really is about equity in pay, equity in leadership and ensuring we’re having environments in every workplace that are good for men and women. We really look at that as a triple threat for women, and it gets to issues of productivity. If women are faced with sexism and harassing behavior in the workplace, that’s taking away time they could be using towards the organization’s ROI (return on investment).

On how #MeToo will change how workplaces view cultural issues: This is not a PR problem that [companies] should just be addressing with NDAs and pay-offs quietly. This is a cultural problem that when the next generations come up, they’re going to lose certain employee pipelines if they don’t work on that culture problem. Employers are thinking about moving beyond their values written on the wall and actually ensuring that they are living their values and being much more proactive about doing increased education and training rather than doing reactive.

On equipping women to negotiate higher salaries with the AAUW’s WorkSmart program: It’s about making sure they really understand both what the marketplace will bear based on their experience, what their value add is to the organization, and setting clear where they are in the scheme of this so they can, really proactively based on that research, couple that with the qualitative skills of understanding how to negotiate. That’s what we’re working on with the WorkSmart program. It really is arming women around the nation with the tools that they need to really help their families thrive economically.

Letitia James

New York City Public Advocate

On banning employers from asking questions about salary history in New York City: No one should be judged on their past salaries. They’ll be judged on their skills and what they bring to the table, and no longer will their past salaries follow them or be attached with them all the way until retirement. It’s really important that individual employers be more conspicuous in posting salaries and they hire based on one’s ability, as opposed to one’s previous salary.

On how #MeToo is changing workplaces: The #MeToo movement obviously is advancing policies that create safe workplaces and workplaces that are free of discrimination and free of harassment. A lot of things are coming to the forefront as a result of the activism that we are seeing, both in the gender equality space and in other spaces, including but not limited to gun control. And again, it’s because of what is happening on the national level, the ground is shaking and I think change is happening right before our eyes.

On how Trump’s election win inspired progressives to work harder on women’s issues: He’s awakened the sleeping giant, and to a certain extent, that is a good thing. We took a lot of things for granted, and now, with so many things being taken away from us, everything’s on the table, everything’s up for debate, everything’s at risk. We’re seeing more and more change happening and rightfully so, and we’re seeing more and more individuals in Congress retire, and that’s always a good thing. And most of them happen to be male, pale and stale.

Megan Colligan

Former worldwide president of marketing and distribution at Paramount Pictures

On the importance of Time’s Up and having support networks: A lot is built into the system that is intended to devalue you, and it’s really important to try as much as possible to create a really strong system around women so they feel emboldened to be strong and to get paid for what they’re worth. It’s 2018. It feels, to me, at times ludicrous that this is still a conversation, but it really is a deep, deep issue that goes into nearly every industry and is a real problem. And a far greater problem if you are a woman of color It is something that really deserves addressing.

On why boardrooms must be diverse: If you’re sitting with a monolithic group of people, and those 10 people all represent the exact same thing — they are all 58-year-old, heterosexual white guys with three kids who live on the westside of Los Angeles — by definition, you are going to limit your ability to have a thoughtful, meaningful, dynamic conversation about a piece of material or decision about anything. You’re going to have blinders on, you’re going to miss nuance, you’re going to miss interpretation. It is impossible to have somebody else’s point of you, no matter how empathetic or how open-minded you are. As a business leader in today’s culture, it is imperative if you want to run a great business, that you value diversity of thought and diversity of background as a premium to running a great business. It is no longer acceptable that what you’re doing is casting a boardroom that makes you feel comfortable or people that make you feel like you’re looking in a sea of mirrors. You’re not meant to be reflecting back your own thoughts or ideas or seeing people that look you.

Arianna Huffington

CEO of Thrive Global, Founder of the Huffington Post

On how the fight for equal pay is changing: What’s changing now is consumer pressure – more and more people, especially young people, expect and even demand that the brands they identify with align with certain core principles. And that increasingly means equal pay and diversity. There’s also the fact that companies with more diversity in their leadership perform better.

On what’s next for Time’s Up: We shouldn’t limit the discussion just to explicit harassment, because it’s our entire workplace culture that needs to change. Far too many workplaces are fueled by a culture of machismo, which affects the day-to-day experience of women at every level. We need to change the conditions that create a fertile breeding ground not just for harassment but for the idea that it’s okay to talk over women, devalue them, ignore their contributions and silence their voices in ways big and small.

On how workplaces can be improved for women: Ending our culture of burnout. Yes, it affects everyone, but women pay the highest price. Given that women are more likely to be doing more work at home than men, workplaces in which being expected to be always on and sleep deprivation are taken as a proxy for commitment and dedication become a backdoor way of excluding women or at least making it harder for them to advance.

Jennifer Hyman

CEO and co-founder of Rent the Runway

On #MeToo and Times Up’s impact on the equal pay fight: This is a moment where employees should band together and advocate for themselves, because corporations and leaders are listening now more than they ever had in history. So if women in an organization were to ban together and demand equal pay, there’s more of a chance that’s going to happen now and there will be attention around the issue than there would’ve been a few years ago.

On how companies without pay equity will get pushed out down the road: I think that businesses that continue to be homogenous will see themselves faltering and will overtime disappear. There’s more choice than ever for young, smart people as to where they can work, and where to spend a career. … This is not a generation that’s going to sit back and be quiet like previous generations have before them. When something is wrong and immoral, they’re going to speak up. Unless business leaders understand the future of their employee base is not willing to accept the unequal environment that has perpetuated in the past, they’re not going to be around in the future.

Andrea Jung

President and CEO of Grameen America; former CEO of Avon

On what it takes to solve the gender wage gap: There are a lot of things that may require policy. This is not one of them. This is simply asking the question. This should not be difficult. There are many things culturally and policy-wise that will take some time. This one could be solved tomorrow. It’s unacceptable, as far as I’m concerned, that, again, men and women, alike, who are leading companies, who are on boards, who are running HR, don’t just absolutely take a look at it and say tomorrow it stops. If we adjusted pay, and it doesn’t have to be all in one day, but if we made a commitment to adjust pay to ensure women are paid the same as men, particularly when we hire and promote, you begin to deal with an issue that should be resolved by the end of 2018. There’s just no way we should be going into the next decade with inequality for the same job.

On how #MeToo and #Time’sUp play a role in equal pay: It’s sort of an existential moment for equality, and I think MeToo and Time’s Up, while the original focus has been on harassment, I think it is about equality. They are integrally linked, and there is no question in my mind that it’s Times Up for $0.80. MeToo also means I should be earning a dollar for a dollar. I don’t think this genie can get put back in its bottle. I think this is a defining moment, which can in fact move the needle finally on long-awaited equality in the workplace.

On how the gender wage gap hurts not just women: Equality in the financial space is critical to mobility and to not only self-confidence, but to participation and the country. There’s no way that the economy in the United States can grow without women participating and equally.

Debra Lee

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of BET Network

On how barrier-breaking women can help solve the wage gap: I think younger women are expecting more. I look at my 24-year-old daughter, and she grew up in a different time than I did, so she saw the steps I was able to make and the accomplishments that I was able to do. But she also has her own expectation of what women should be in the workplace. I think each generation is a little bit more demanding in terms of work-life balance or how they were treated in the workplace. I look at my mother’s generation and, well, she had to work. My sister’s generation, they made a decision between work and being a mother. My generation, I think was the first that said, ‘Hey, we can do both. We can be mothers, and be married, and have families and have careers.’ I just can’t imagine what this next generation’s going to do because they’re so much more self-confident. I just have really high hopes for them, that they’re going to really set this world on fire. Because of all of these things they’ve seen happening, they’re just not going to let it happen anymore. When you think of the number of women who have been quiet through #MeToo moments, and now all of sudden people have the courage to speak out? Well, hopefully this will be a signal to all of our daughters that you never have to take anything like this again. I’m optimistic that each generation gets a little bit more equal and we’ve got to keep moving the ball down the court, and hopefully there won’t be any setbacks.

On her work for Time’s Up on creating more diverse board rooms: The board is the starting point for having women especially be seen as an important part of a company. It’s a statement to the shareholders, it’s a statement to employees and executives at the company, that the company is committed to women’s advancement.

On the importance of elevating the voices of women of color: We have to include the voices of women of color. I think with the #MeToo movement, it was important to go back and say, ‘Now wait a moment, this black woman came up this term 10 years ago.’

You don’t want young people feeling like if you look a certain way or if you come from a certain place, your issues are going to be taken more seriously. All of these issues are important, and as you said, with women of color making less than white women, that’s an issue we should talk about . We should have the voices of a diverse group of people. Just like all of the other issues, it’s just really important to make sure we hear from different kinds of people.

Patty McCord

Author and former Netflix chief talent officer

On how female-dominated departments can fix the wage gap: What are the three typically most-female dominated in a company? Sales and marketing, finance and HR. I say: Fix pay? We own it. We’re in charge of our destiny. Find your power, and do something about this. It’s called writing checks. I think pay is so fundamental, and, you know, everything else gets very nuanced.

On how #MeToo and #TimesUp have empowered women to demand equal pay: I tell people, look, I’m about to get all shrill on you. I’m going to be aggressive. I’m going to be assertive. I’m going to be bossy. I’m going to be a nasty woman. I’m going to persist. Because I’ve had it. I don’t mean that we shouldn’t pay attention to the soft stuff, I don’t. But we gotta fix pay. Right? You’re going to feel a hell of a lot more powerful, and a hell of a lot stronger, and a hell of a lot more able to stand up for yourself when you’re paid fairly. Right? And then the search for equality is about that: equality.

On knowing your worth: Understanding your worth — what your worth — is a really important financial decision that all of us should be thinking about and not just being passively waiting for it. It’s more about getting information and data to help inform you about what you’re worth, because you’re worth what somebody else will pay you to do what it is you know how to do. It’s a market. It really is a market system in most places, but it’s not if you’re inside of a corporation with a fixed compensation scheme that traps you inside of it. For example, if you go out and interview — which is one of the ways I recommend you find out what you’re worth, and a good exercise to do anyway — it keeps you limber. It’s a skill you should keep up.

Claudia Mirza

CEO and co-founder of Akorbi, a global language translation company

On the importance of having diverse boardrooms: You need to be really thoughtful about diversity in the boardroom. Boardrooms do not necessarily have a lot of diversity in them, so I would say in order to promote equal pay and equal opportunity to women at work, it goes more than that. The diversity of the boardroom is extremely critical, but also diversity in the executive level. I remember that I was the only woman at work in the executive team, and really the executive team was not that exciting. We were working and everything, but the moment we added a woman to the room, we realized it really changed.

On how #MeToo and #TimesUp show a company’s strength is in its principles: It goes back to the foundation of a business. Going back to diverse boardrooms, where women are involved and women and male are equally — and also, community, and diversity, people with disabilities — we have the opportunity to hear their equal perspective. But also creating the right avenues for people to report them. [...] You have to create different avenues and workflows for people to be able to report irregular activities.

On the power of teaching negotiation strategies early on: Negotiation has a technique, and we cannot be victims of negotiation tactics in order to evaluate the value of ourselves. It is important for us as women to understand how to value ourselves and bring those negotiation tactics, and that’s by building that. We need to teach our girls to be bold, to not to think they are less than a man and empower them from childhood to believe that everything is possible.

Donna Morris

Executive Vice President of Customer and Employee Experience at Adobe

On what companies should value — and how female leadership can help: If you fundamentally believe that people are the most important asset to your company, why wouldn’t you seek to establish practices and programs, and have a principal that you should compensate fairly based on their contribution? It just seems crazy that one group would be disadvantaged relative to another group. I think the role that women in leadership can play is that they can bring in different perspectives, which is important, just like men can bring in different perspectives to a group that might be made up of all women.

Time’s up for the companies that haven’t addressed pay gaps. It’s really up. I cannot understand why companies can be satisfied with operating with pay gaps between gender or between ethnic groups here in the U.S. It’s unacceptable.

On the importance of speaking up: I think what the MeToo and the Time’s Up movements have done — which I view as a very good thing — it has really given individuals confidence to speak up. I think that confidence comes as much from men as it does from women. There’s a tendency to believe MeToo or Time’s Up is all about women. I actually think it’s a lot about empowering men as well. Empowering men to speak up, and I think that’s equally powerful.

On standardized pay for new hires: I’m actually an advocate for having standardized pay. That’s less about people at certain schools earn more than those from other schools. Why should it matter? You got a degree, you got a certain amount of experience, shouldn’t now it be an equal playing field? I think there are lots of merits to having more standardizations earlier on in your career.

It’s no secret that the fight to win the right to vote for American women was a massive effort. But one of the many groups involved in that effort may still hold a little surprise: female circus performers.

As explained in this preview clip from the new PBS American Experience documentary The Circus, premiering Monday and Tuesday in two parts, one major element turning the tide toward suffrage was the increasing presence of women in the workforce. Women who could support themselves, who spent more of their time out of the home, could see the iniquity in their lack of political representation. Those working women turned out in force for a massive 1912 suffrage rally in New York City and continued to push for change all the way up until the passing of the 19th Amendment.

But that group wasn’t limited to just the better-known women workers, like those in the garment industry who so bolstered the labor movement. The women of the circus were also part of this history. In fact, that march took place right around the same time as the founding of the Barnum & Bailey’s Circus Women’s Equal Rights Society.

And, explains Janet M. Davis, a professor of American Studies at the University of Texas at Austin and author of The Circus Age: Culture and Society under the American Big Top, there’s a good reason why they would have taken on that role. “This is an era when the circus is truly the most popular form of American entertainment,” she tells TIME. The circus was also a place where women could find opportunities, independence, freedom and, for stars, salaries just as high as those earned by their male counterparts.

Davis traces the history of American women in the circus to an equestrian performer who first appeared in a circus in 1794, but she says that women’s place in the big top was slow to get established. Especially during periods of religious revival and public moral concern, women were often barred from performing in any public setting. As women began to participate more in public life in the 19th century, that went for the circus too — a favor that the circus women would return later, by using their public face to campaign for suffrage.

Even so, Davis says, the circus was also a place of contradiction — of activist women earning high salaries in a place known for bucking norms, but whose star-making performances were often couched in marketing campaigns that would emphasize their domesticity. One circus, Davis adds, ran an ad campaign claiming that at every stop on the road the women couldn’t wait to get off the train to bake a cake. Many circuses had strict behavior codes for female performers, designed to convince audiences that the circus was a fun family attraction, not something seedy. One influential equestrian performer, Josie DeMott Robinson, recalled the strange feeling of wearing relatively skimpy and short clothes for her act and then rushing off to put on a long skirt as soon as she left the ring, to “mark her as respectable,” as Davis says.

“It’s an interesting tightrope, if you will,” Davis says.

The iPhone XR is a great iPhone. Its huge screen is nice, the camera is great, and those eye-catching colors present you with options beyond just black or white. In some scenarios, the iPhone XR even performs better than its more expensive iPhone XS counterpart. And if you liked the last iPhones, you’ll probably love this one, too — it’s still an iPhone, after all. But it’s also a boring iPhone, one that does more to remind me of the four-year-old iPhone 6 than it does the brand new iPhone XS, despite the similarities in both size and features. Still, it’s probably the one you should get.

Apple’s iPhones have a pretty good track record, and the XR doesn’t stray from that. The $749 base model comes with 64GB of storage, making the $50 upsell to the 128GB model a no-brainer (there’s an $899 256GB version as well). It shares a lot of DNA with its more expensive iPhone XS counterpart: both base models feature the A12 Bionic processor, making them equally capable at handling your drawn-out games of Hearthstone or Fortnite as well as your photo and video editing sessions.

You’ll also get the fingerprint-free Face ID security feature, letting you log in by looking at the XR’s depth-scanning camera embedded in the, uh, polarizing notch at the top of the 6.1-inch screen. It does add fun features like Animoji and the more customizable Memoji, but expanding videos to take advantage of the entire display means there’s a small cutout that leaves me perpetually irked.

That screen is more than decent, however. Apple calls it a Liquid Retina LCD display, and it’s a delight to look at. It shares the same pixel density as previous iPhones, which determines the sharpness of things like text and images. The XR isn’t as sharp as the XS, but you won’t notice unless you’re an eagle-eyed nitpicker. It also shares the iPhone XS’ useful touch to wake feature, which has been available on Android devices for a few years.

Unfortunately, the iPhone XR ditches the underrated pressure-sensitive 3D Touch feature found on every other model since the iPhone 7 in favor of Haptic Touch, which simulates 3D Touch in predetermined areas — like the XR’s lock screen and Control Center — after you long press on an icon. Removing the equivalent of a right-click option from your phones and essentially deleting the 3D Touch features used by a great deal of apps isn’t helpful to anyone, and creates an unnecessary distinction between the XR and other iPhones. It’s a move that compromises usability that should be standard across all devices.

Design-wise, the iPhone XR looks like a combination of old and new, ditching the top and bottom bezels of older iPhones along with the Touch ID fingerprint reader, but keeping the same rounded design and aluminum edges. Available in white, black, blue, yellow, coral and red, there’s probably a color appealing enough for you. Don’t want to pay the premium for the $999-and-up iPhone XS and its fancy stainless steel construction? The aluminum XR looks just fine, and you won’t notice the difference if you’re using a case. It also brings wireless charging to the mix thanks to the glass back. Now if only Apple would release a wireless charger so I didn’t have to rely on Google’s adorable Pixel Stand, released alongside the Pixel 3 and 3 XL.

The iPhone XR is larger than the upscale XS in every dimension, though only by a few millimeters each way. It also weighs a few grams more, which lends to it a feeling of increased density. The XR’s size gives me pause — every smartphone is inching its way up in size, and unless you’ve got a good tailor, I doubt your pockets are handling it well.

Apple’s new iOS 12 software adds a great deal of much-needed features, along with a few fun tricks that merge the real world with the digital. Additions like improved augmented reality mean more accurate measurements of walls or boxes, better furniture previews, and multiplayer-friendly AR games. Screen Time, which shows how much time you spend in apps and lets you set specific timers, make managing your attention span a bit easier — it’s a great first step from Apple to help users better manage their time spent on devices. Deeper integration with password managers and a streamlined SMS verification process make staying secure less of a headache, too. Another highlight is the new Shortcuts app, which you can use to create automated actions that can, for example, send your ETA to everyone important to you, or automatically play a whole album based on the song you’re listening to. The learning curve is a bit steep, but it pays off when it comes to more tedious tasks, and there’s slew of pre-made shortcuts from which you can use.

The iPhone XR’s camera is, of course, awesome. That makes sense; it’s using basically the same 12-megapixel wide-angle camera lens that’s on the iPhone XS, which means you can take advantage of features like Smart HDR (for capturing more detail in bright or dark spots) and 4K video recording at 60 frames per second.

You’ll also find the much-desired Portrait Mode on both sides of the XR, despite its lack of a rear telephoto lens. Where iPhones with dual cameras use both lenses to simulate DSLR-quality photos with a shallow depth of field, the XR uses the wide angle lens and AI to achieve a similar effect. It works pretty well, though the iPhone XR’s photos sometimes leave a very faint “glow” around your subject. Interestingly enough, the XR’s portrait mode can create brighter and more vibrant shots in low-light situations than the iPhone XS. In some instances, both the subject and myself preferred the warmer tones of the XR and its wide-angle portrait shots. The front-facing 7-megapixel TrueDepth selfie camera also supports Portrait Mode.

The competition is changing the photography game, however. Google’s $799 Pixel 3 has its own Portrait Mode — also using a single lens and AI — that produces even sharper images than the XR, and adds camera features like Super Zoom (enhancing zoomed photos using image stabilization) and soon Night Sight, which can dramatically enhance the quality of low-light images. Apple’s iPhone XR does indeed have an awesome camera, but so does its rivals.

If you’re committed to getting an iPhone, then, like all things, it all comes down to money. Is the $250 difference to upgrade to the iPhone XS worth it? That in part depends on whether you care about having the absolute highest-end phone in town. That’s a question you’ll have to wrestle with at checkout, but the iPhone XR is more than enough smartphone for most people. The single camera will treat you right, the screen is sharp enough for almost anything you’d be watching, and unless you’re a photography buff or high-def videophile, Apple’s iPhone XR will handle most anything you can throw at it. It’s an iPhone, after all.

Boeing tumbled early Monday on heightened scrutiny by regulators and prosecutors over whether the approval process for the company’s 737 Max jetliner was flawed.

A person familiar with the matter on Sunday said that the U.S. Transportation Department’s Inspector General was examining the plane’s design certification before the second of two deadly crashes of the almost brand-new aircraft.

Separately, the Wall Street Journal reported that a grand jury in Washington, D.C., on March 11 issued a subpoena to at least one person involved in the development process of the Max. And a Seattle Times investigation found that U.S. regulators delegated much of the plane’s safety assessment to Boeing and that the company in turn delivered an analysis with crucial flaws.

Boeing dropped 2.8 percent to $368.53 before the start of regular trading Monday in New York, well below any closing price since the deadly crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 on March 10. Ethiopia’s transport minister said Sunday that flight-data recorders showed “clear similarities” between the crashes of that plane and Lion Air Flight 610 last October.

Read more: Q&A on Boeing’s 737 Max crisis

U.S. Federal Aviation Administration employees warned as early as seven years ago that Boeing had too much sway over safety approvals of new aircraft, prompting an investigation by Transportation Department auditors who confirmed the agency hadn’t done enough to “hold Boeing accountable.”

The 2012 investigation also found that discord over Boeing’s treatment had created a “negative work environment” among FAA employees who approve new and modified aircraft designs, with many of them saying they’d faced retaliation for speaking up. Their concerns pre-dated the 737 Max development.

In recent years, the FAA has shifted more authority over the approval of new aircraft to the manufacturer itself, even allowing Boeing to choose many of the personnel who oversee tests and vouch for safety. Just in the past few months, Congress expanded the outsourcing arrangement even further.

“It raises for me the question of whether the agency is properly funded, properly staffed and whether there has been enough independent oversight,” said Jim Hall, who was chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board from 1994 to 2001 and is now an aviation-safety consultant.

Outsourcing Safety

At least a portion of the flight-control software suspected in the 737 Max crashes was certified by one or more Boeing employees who worked in the outsourcing arrangement, according to one person familiar with the work who wasn’t authorized to speak about the matter.

The Wall Street Journal first reported the inspector general’s latest inquiry. The watchdog is trying to assess whether the FAA used appropriate design standards and engineering analysis in approving the 737 Max’s anti-stall system, the newspaper said.

Both Boeing and the Transportation Department declined to comment about that inquiry.

In a statement on Sunday, the agency said its “aircraft certification processes are well established and have consistently produced safe aircraft designs,” adding that the “737 Max certification program followed the FAA’s standard certification process.”

The Ethiopian Airlines plane crashed minutes after it took off from Addis Ababa, killing all 157 people on board. The accident prompted most of the world to ground Boeing’s 737 Max 8 aircraft on safety concerns, coming on the heels of the October crash of a Max 8 operated by Indonesia’s Lion Air that killed 189 people. Much of the attention focused on a flight-control system that can automatically push a plane into a catastrophic nose dive if it malfunctions and pilots don’t react properly.

In one of the most detailed descriptions yet of the relationship between Boeing and the FAA during the 737 Max’s certification, the Seattle Times quoted unnamed engineers who said the planemaker had understated the power of the flight-control software in a System Safety Analysis submitted to the FAA. The newspaper said the analysis also failed to account for how the system could reset itself each time a pilot responded — in essence, gradually ratcheting the horizontal stabilizer into a dive position.

Software Fix

Boeing told the newspaper in a statement that the FAA had reviewed the company’s data and concluded the aircraft “met all certification and regulatory requirements.” The company, which is based in Chicago but designs and builds commercial jets in the Seattle area, said there are “some significant mischaracterizations” in the engineers’ comments.

In a separate statement Sunday, Boeing Chief Executive Officer Dennis Muilenburg reiterated the company’s sympathies for the affected families and support for the investigation into the flight-control system, known as the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System.

“While investigators continue to work to establish definitive conclusions, Boeing is finalizing its development of a previously announced software update and pilot training revision that will address the MCAS flight-control law’s behavior in response to erroneous sensor inputs,” Muilenburg said.

The newspaper also quoted unnamed FAA technical experts who said managers prodded them to speed up the certification process as development of the Max was nine months behind that of rival Airbus SE’s A320neo.

The FAA has let technical experts at aircraft makers act as its representatives to perform certain tests and approve some parts for decades. The FAA expanded the scope of that program in 2005 to address concerns about adequately keeping pace with its workload. Known as Organization Designation Authorization, or ODA, it let Boeing and other manufacturers choose the employees who approve design work on the agency’s behalf.

Previously, the FAA approved each appointment. Under the new approach, which was fully implemented in 2009, the ODA representatives are still under U.S. legal requirements and the FAA has the authority to oversee them and request that their management be changed.

Anonymous Faxes

In 2012, a special investigator of the Office of Inspector General at the Department of Transportation sent a memo to the FAA’s audit chief warning him of concerns voiced by agency employees about the new process. Some allegations were made in anonymous faxes sent to the inspector general’s office, and the office followed up by interviewing employees in the FAA’s Transport Airplane Directorate.

“Our investigation substantiated employee allegations that TAD and FAA headquarters managers have not always supported TAD employee efforts to hold Boeing accountable and this has created a negative atmosphere within the TAD,” according to the June 22, 2012, report sent to the FAA. (The memo was made available later in a public records request and appears now on a website operated by governmentattic.org, which warehouses government documents. A spokesman for the inspector general’s office confirmed its authenticity.)

The employees told the investigators that managers had overturned a recommendation by staff to remove the administrator Boeing had chosen for the program and “had not adequately addressed employees’ concerns” about potential conflicts of interest, the memo said. The employees, it said, viewed this as evidence of management having “too close a relationship with Boeing officials.”

Despite those concerns, as well as others raised in a subsequent report by the inspector general, Congress has embraced the program as a way to improve the FAA’s efficiency.

President Donald Trump signed into law a change on Oct. 5. It allows manufacturers to request that the FAA eliminate limitations on how company representatives certify “low and medium risk” items, giving them even more authority over their own products.

The agency doesn’t have the budget to do every test, and “the use of designees is absolutely necessary,” said Steve Wallace, the former head of accident investigations at the FAA. “For the most part, it works extremely well. There is a very high degree of integrity in the system.”

Dreamliner Fires

But the program was also at issue in the FAA’s 2013 grounding of Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner after two fires of battery packs. Boeing’s designated engineering representatives oversaw tests of the battery packs.

A 2015 report by the Department of Transportation’s inspector general, requested by U.S. Representative Peter DeFazio, found the FAA lacked “an effective staffing model” and “risk-based oversight process” over the ODA program.

DeFazio, an Oregon Democrat, now heads the House transportation and infrastructure committee, and has said he will conduct a “rigorous investigation” to make sure the FAA is protecting safety.

Hall, the former NTSB chairman, said the agency’s move to shift power to the manufacturers contributed to the unusual situation in which two of Boeing’s newly introduced aircraft were grounded in a period of six years. Before the Dreamliner, the FAA hadn’t grounded a model since 1979.

“When I was chairman of the NTSB, my single most important job was who we hired,” Hall said. “Do we have in the federal government the level of funding and expertise we need? Are we attracting the kind of young, smart minds that continue to uphold our reputation in the aviation area?”

As the investigation continues, mourners marched in the hundreds past the Library of Parliament in Addis Ababa to Selassie Cathedral for a funeral service Sunday, wearing black or the sea-green uniforms of Ethiopian Airlines and carrying photos of the dead. After a priest read the victims’ names aloud, people carried empty coffins from the cathedral to a graveyard. All that was heard was sobbing, wailing and chanting.

Another month, another “supermoon”. Tonight, the “super worm moon”—the third supermoon of 2019 to be exact— will light up the sky in all its slightly-larger-than-usual glory. What makes this full moon extra special is that it is coinciding with the Spring Equinox, or the first day of spring in the northern hemisphere, a rare astronomical coincidence.

For those who are exhausted by all the recent supermoons, the “super worm moon” will be the last supermoon of the year. However, for those who couldn’t get enough of February’s “super snow moon” or January’s “super blood wolf moon” eclipse, the “super worm moon” will be the last opportunity for a while to see a supermoon.

Here’s what you need to know about March 2019’s “super worm moon,” and the best time to see it.

What is a super worm moon?

A supermoon — which typically happens two to three times per year — is a full moon that occurs at the moon’s perigee, the point in the moon’s orbit when it is closest to the earth, making it appear bigger and brighter in the sky. Because the moon’s orbit is shaped more like an egg, as opposed to a perfect circle. (Conversely, the apogee is the point when the moon is farthest from earth.)

However, it is relatively rare for a supermoon to coincide with the Spring Equinox. The last time the cosmic alignment happened was in 2000, and it won’t occur again until 2038.

Why is it called a super worm moon?

The “worm moon” is the third moon of the year, and comes from historic Native American naming conventions for full moons. According to the Farmer’s Almanac, the March full moon is called the “worm moon” because it is around this time of year that the ground softens and worms begin to appear in the soil again, marking the beginning of Spring. The March full moon is also sometimes referred to as the “sap moon” as it marks the time of year when sugar maples begin to release their sap.

When can people see the super worm moon?

The moon will technically reach peak fullness at 9:42 p.m. EST on March 20, approximately four hours after the vernal equinox at 5:42 p.m. EST, according to timeanddate.com. Moonrise will happen soon after, but will vary depending on your location. For cities in the continental U.S., moonrise will occur sometime between 6:30 and 7:30 p.m. local time. To check the exact time for where you live, go here. For those trying to get a good photo of the “super worm moon,” the best strategy is to aim for a time near moonrise, as the moon appears larger the closer it is to the horizon, due to an optical illusion.

What will the super worm moon look like?

While the “super worm moon” won’t be as big and bright as last month’s “super snow moon,” it will still be quite the photogenic spectacle. Past supermoons have been the subject of interesting photos from around the world.

If you can’t make it outside, or have the misfortune of a cloudy sky, you can watch the livestream of the “super worm moon” from the Virtual Telescope Project below:

When’s the next big full moon?

The “super worm moon” is the last supermoon of 2019. The next supermoons are set to light up the skies on March 9 and April 8, 2020.

While Jacqueline Lee Bouvier Kennedy was the one married to President John F. Kennedy, many Americans felt married to the idea of the two of them. Their relationship was central to the concept of the Kennedy “Camelot” that is still the object of so much national nostalgia.

So it was that many took the news hard when, nearly five years later after his assassination, the 39-year-old former First Lady felt ready to move on.

She remarried 50 years ago this Saturday, wedding the flamboyant Greek shipping tycoon Aristotle “Ari” Onassis, who claimed to be 62 but had once had a passport that placed him a few years older than that. “Everything, from sugared almonds to the waiting yacht, was ready to celebrate the new life of Mr. and Mrs. Aristotle Onassis,” TIME noted in its coverage of the secret Greek Orthodox wedding ceremony. “Everything, that is, except what is known as ‘the world,’ which seemed unable to comprehend or accept the match.”

The magazine explained the level of shock in that Oct. 25, 1968, cover story:

The nuptials also came as a shock in a more basic sense because of how suddenly the wedding happened.

Even the bride’s mother said it was a surprise, and LIFE magazine quoted her as saying her daughter informed her by calling to ask her if she could get on a plane the very next day. Jackie’s younger sister Lee Radziwill said the engagement was a surprise to her too. She had dated Onassis previously, and the way the news was handled would end up souring their relationship.

However, in the context of the other shocking events of the momentous year that was 1968, covering the wedding, as former Time Inc. publisher James R. Shepley wrote in a note to readers, “offered a pleasant, if hectic, change of pace” for reporters “in a year that has seen more than its share of grim news.”

Unsurprisingly, there was a lot of speculation about what exactly drew the two together. Some Kennedy-watchers speculated that she, as a paparazzi target, was attracted to his private security detail. “The idea that he owned a yacht and could just literally sail her away from all of her troubles and take her to this private island, a place where she could just be reclusive, was incredibly appealing,” Tina Cassidy, author of a biography of the former First Lady, Jackie After O, says in the 2017 documentary Jackie: A Tale of Two Sisters. But he also had had his eye on her for a while. Cassidy notes that he was one of the first visitors to the White House after the assassination, arguing, “I think people also believed that Onassis was always looking for an angle with Jackie, and it wasn’t until after Robert Kennedy’s assassination that he felt like he had a window and could put the moves on her.”

Unfortunately, the pair did not live happily ever after.

As TIME reported in his 1975 obituary, “After the honeymoon, the marriage was filled with what one intimate of Ari’s called ‘the nights of long silences.’ Jackie loved concerts, ballet and theater; Onassis preferred raucous bouzouki music, belly dancers and at times the company of roistering Greek businessmen. Much of the time they lived separate lives.” He was never the same after the sudden death in 1973 of his only son. He expressed the idea that President Kennedy’s death had cursed his wife, and in turn, him, calling her “the witch,” according to TIME’s 1994 obituary for the former First Lady.

But the public, even after the wedding, maintained its soft spot for Jackie. She became “Jackie O.,” a nickname that first appeared in the pages of TIME a few months after the wedding, and the fascination with her life never faded — even when it was impossible to know the exact reason for every little thing going wrong in it. In fact, as a symbol of grace in times of sadness, her personal struggles perhaps in the end made Americans love her even more.