Baltimore college students create program to provide equal access to the arts

While many college students spend their campus years attending parties, drinking, and sleeping in, the group of young adults who competed in a recent tech for good competition are setting the bar high. Nearly 50 students representing 22 countries around the world recently participated in Red Bull Basement University, a four-day workshop in Toronto, Canada,…

Array
Photo credit: Courtesy of Kristofer MaduMadu (left) and Banerjee (right) with First Fridays Group participant, Amaru (middle)

While many college students spend their campus years attending parties, drinking, and sleeping in, the group of young adults who competed in a recent tech for good competition are setting the bar high.

Nearly 50 students representing 22 countries around the world recently participated in Red Bull Basement University, a four-day workshop in Toronto, Canada, comprised of lectures, keynote speakers, panels, and individual mentorship sessions with global tech leaders and inspirational entrepreneurs.


The event allowed the student teams to showcase and further develop their innovative business ideas, which were all created to help improve life on campus by driving positive change through technology.

Upworthy was able to speak with the team representing the United States, called First Fridays Group, which made it into the top 10 group of finalists. The founders, Kristofer Madu and Sindhu Banerjee, are students at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and developed an idea that promotes equal opportunity and access to the arts. The team explains how they came up with the idea for First Fridays Group, their vision for the future, and how technology will help them continue to improve the lives of others through their work.

Upworthy: Could you explain your idea and how you came up with it?

Kristofer Madu: We believe everyone deserves the opportunity to explore their creative passions. So we’re becoming the missing link between college students and their hidden creative talents. And that looks like easy skill acquisition in technical art form. To make that more practical sounding, consider art forms like DJ, photography, videography, music production. They’re expensive and they’re inaccessible for many who can’t afford them or even just perceive them as too hard.

Sindhu Banerjee: That’s where First Fridays comes in. What we’ve been doing is providing specialized one-on-one training with any college students. And so we bring them into our little studio. I provide them with one-on-one training, and through three 45-minute sessions, we’re able to teach them all the basics of DJ training. And then right after that, we have them perform in front of crowds of 500 people, and in the front row is their friends, all watching and recording. It’s a really transformative experience in which we give them self-confidence, we teach them a new skill, and we imbue them with the talent that they can now use for paid opportunities.

Upworthy: What is your background? If you’re teaching them, you obviously have DJ skills. But let’s say someone wants to learn more about photography. Do you guys have all those skills between the two of you, or are you bringing in outside mentors who are volunteering their time to do this?

Banerjee: Yeah, so we started off, the three of us… Duncan is our third member who’s in the United States. He has excellent photography skills. His dad has photographed for Prince. I’ve been deejaying for the past three years, and Kris has been rapping for the past eight. So together, we do have strong artistic abilities.

One-on-one trainings take a lot of time. And so the first step in trying to train as many people as possible, we brought on two more student DJs who have helped DJ more students. So at this point, we’ve trained over 40 people how to DJ.

But that’s the reason why we want to go into tech is because if we want to be teaching as many people as possible, we want to be able to have a platform to make it more tangible. The first 40 minutes of what I’m teaching anybody is the exact same stuff. It’s beat matching, it’s filtering, and then it’s putting songs together to build their set. That applies to every single training I do, and so to solve that inefficiency, we can make that standard on a digitized platform.

Madu: I want to stress that our platform is not at all limited to DJ, and we’ve provided opportunities for creatives in several mediums, whether it’s one-on-one DJ trainings, or photography and videography workshops, or even studio recording sessions for recording artists.

So I want to tell you a story of what exactly that’s looked like. Baltimore is a city with a lot of economic disparity. It’s one of the top 10 most impoverished cities in the United States. As a result, there are high degrees of separation between universities and the local communities that surround them, especially in Baltimore. This is a need that exists all around the country.

I want to talk about Mandy. Mandy is a Baltimore native and she goes to a local Baltimore school. She’s always had a passion for photography, but she’s struggled a lot to find outlets to practice those. So every single month we organize events, and Mandy, we’ve brought on our team as our event photographer. But in addition, through our booking agency…we connected Mandy to two paid contracts with Johns Hopkins University to gain economic opportunities through the passion that, before, she thought something like that was impossible.

Upworthy: So are the institutions or venues where these people are showcasing their skills volunteering their space? What does that business model look like?

Madu: We are creating a sustainable business, and thus far, it has been revenue generating. So we have revenue coming in from different streams. Our events are thrown every single month and they’re bringing in crowds of up to 500.

Banerjee: And just to add to that, we strive to be a least-cost provider. Companies throwing events similar to us charge $43 for a single ticket, and that would come with maybe one drink. We provide tickets at $5 to $8 each. And so we’re able to bring in all people from all sorts of background.

Upworthy: You briefly mentioned how you see tech coming into play, but do you have a vision for what your platform would look like? Would you offer, say, an intro to deejaying as a video for students?

Banerjee: It’s really simple. We offer a gamified process. So we want to follow a model where you’re rewarded points based on your skill and consistency. With those points, you can decide how to use them. If you want to use them in order to access more higher-level features, you can go for that. If you want to be able to perform at our events, you can also do that. And then the third one is bookings, at which point you apply to get booked by the First Fridays Group booking agency, and we look at your skill levels based on the points you’ve garnered, and if you’re good enough, then we’re going to go check you out. And if we check you out and you’re good enough, then you’re going to come perform for us.

Madu: We are essentially not just establishing an app, but we’re establishing a pipeline where someone that has no skill, no exposure, no experience, and they didn’t even know they had the interest, can go from a curious creative to a confident crowd favorite, never having to spend a single dollar of their own money. Let’s say they want to upgrade or do a subscription model. The cost, if you want to go out and become a DJ yourself, you’re spending more than a thousand dollars to actually get good the right way. And that can be boiled down to something affordable on the college student’s budget, as well as profit can be subsidized in order to make it available for those from lower income backgrounds. So that’s what drives us and that’s what that looks like in tech.

This interview has been edited for clarity and conciseness.

  • Google editor reveals the 3 most privately searched terms. And honestly, it’s the best of humanity.
    Photo credit: CanvaThe top Google queries are actually inspiring and helpful

    One thing many people believe is that you can truly know a person based on their Google history. Private searching is understandably on the rise, and given how negativity drives a lot of online news and social media, it can be easy to think the same way regarding our searches. However, a Google expert shared that the majority of searches on the platform are actually hopeful.

    Google Data Editor and Journalist Simon Rogers reported that, while we do Google news information, the vast majority of Google queries were positive. In fact, Rogers says Google’s publicly available data set shows a counterbalance to the negativity often seen when scrolling on our feeds. The hard fact is that our Google searches show something different than the narrative on social media.

    “The data is unfailingly honest,” Rogers wrote on CNBC’s Make It. “The way we search collectively is simply not the way we present ourselves on social media. There’s no such thing as a ‘dumb query,’ and analyzing these massive trends gives us a highly accurate reflection of our shared curiosities.”

    Here are the surprisingly refreshing top queries he found on Google:

    ‘How to [insert life skill here]’

    Rogers shares that the top searches start with “How to” and end with some form of life skill or task. “How to boil an egg”, “How to fix a door”, “How to cook spaghetti”, and so on. Google has turned to the go-to place for adults to learn many life skills.

    Some folks may be concerned that adults have to learn basic life tasks they could or should have learned as children. However, it’s mostly agreed that it is good such information is readily available through a simple online search.

    It’s also promising that the top Google searches are from people who want to independently learn their lives (and others) easier. If not a tutorial, they can also use Google as a resource to find classes or people who may properly teach them.

    ‘What’s a job that helps people?’

    The other top trend Rogers indicated was occupation-oriented. While many top searches included queries like “high-paying jobs” and the like, Rogers noticed that those didn’t get the top spots. Searches for a “job that helps people” have surpassed searches for “jobs that pay well.”

    The search for meaning at work has been on the rise since the COVID-19 pandemic. Meaningful careers included therapists, social workers, and other vocations dedicated to health, wellness, and community building.

    ‘How to help [insert person, place, or thing here]’

    Many see our current time as one of anger, tension, and incredibly high division, but Rogers says that couldn’t be further from the truth. Near the top end of Google queries in the U.S. and U.K. is some variation of “How can I help?”

    This is backed up by a 2022 Stanford University report showing that more people are willing to help more than most realize. This echoes a study found that Americans are more likely to help a stranger now than they did in the 1950s or “the good ol’ days” as many frame it. 

    There are many reasons for a person to help, and not all of them are altruistic. However, the fact that so many do such a search that it towers over all others can feel inspiring.

    These trends show and can back up the claim that people are still instinctively good. If you still don’t think so, well…just Google it.

  • William Shatner describes the incredible pain he felt when he finally went into orbit
    Photo credit: William Shatner” by Gage Skidmore is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.William Shatner's trip to space wasn't what he expected.

    Statistically speaking, the number of humans who have traveled into space is insignificant. But the experience of leaving our home planet and venturing into the great beyond is incredibly significant for the individuals who have actually done it. One of those fortunate humans is actor William Shatner, who spent three years pretending to hurtle through space in his iconic role as Captain James T. Kirk on the original Star Trek series. As captain of the USS Enterprise, Captain Kirk was dedicated to exploring “strange new worlds,” seeking out “new life and new civilizations,” and boldly going “where no man has gone before.”

    Naturally, Shatner has spent a lot of time pondering what it would be like to actually experience leaving Earth, and when he took the opportunity to join Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin trip to space in October 2021 at age 90, he was able to compare how his expectations met up with reality. Shatner shared an excerpt from his book with Variety, and it reveals that his initial reaction to being in space was surprisingly dark.

    “I love the mystery of the universe,” Shatner wrote. “I love all the questions that have come to us over thousands of years of exploration and hypotheses. Stars exploding years ago, their light traveling to us years later; black holes absorbing energy; satellites showing us entire galaxies in areas thought to be devoid of matter entirely… all of that has thrilled me for years…”

    What Shatner actually saw when he looked into space

    However, as he looked out the window of the spacecraft (a real one, not a screen on a film set) and looked in the direction opposite Earth, “there was no mystery, no majestic awe to behold,” he wrote. “All I saw was death. I saw a cold, dark, black emptiness. It was unlike any blackness you can see or feel on Earth. It was deep, enveloping, all-encompassing.”

    As he turned back toward “the light of home,” he saw the opposite. “I could see the curvature of Earth, the beige of the desert, the white of the clouds and the blue of the sky. It was life. Nurturing, sustaining, life. Mother Earth. Gaia. And I was leaving her.”

    Then he had a stunning revelation: “Everything I had thought was wrong. Everything I had expected to see was wrong.”

    Again, this is a man who has spent much of his life thinking about space, not as an astronaut or astronomer or astrophysicist, but as a human being stuck on the Earth’s surface, struck with wonder about what’s out there. He explained what he had been wrong about:

    “I had thought that going into space would be the ultimate catharsis of that connection I had been looking for between all living things—that being up there would be the next beautiful step to understanding the harmony of the universe. In the film ‘Contact,’ when Jodie Foster’s character goes to space and looks out into the heavens, she lets out an astonished whisper, ‘They should’ve sent a poet.’ I had a different experience, because I discovered that the beauty isn’t out there, it’s down here, with all of us. Leaving that behind made my connection to our tiny planet even more profound.

    “It was among the strongest feelings of grief I have ever encountered. The contrast between the vicious coldness of space and the warm nurturing of Earth below filled me with overwhelming sadness. Every day, we are confronted with the knowledge of further destruction of Earth at our hands: the extinction of animal species, of flora and fauna . . . things that took five billion years to evolve, and suddenly we will never see them again because of the interference of mankind. It filled me with dread. My trip to space was supposed to be a celebration; instead, it felt like a funeral.”

    The overview effect and what it means for all of us

    Shatner explained how this “sense of the planet’s fragility takes hold in an ineffable, instinctive manner” for many astronauts when they view Earth from orbit. It’s part of the “overview effect,” the profound shift in perspective that comes with seeing our collective home from a distance. With no visible borders between nations or peoples, it becomes clear that our divisions are all manmade, which can change the way we view humanity as a whole.

    The experience left Shatner with renewed conviction to focus on what we share in common.

    “It reinforced tenfold my own view on the power of our beautiful, mysterious collective human entanglement,” he wrote, “and eventually, it returned a feeling of hope to my heart. In this insignificance we share, we have one gift that other species perhaps do not: we are aware, not only of our insignificance, but the grandeur around us that makes us insignificant. That allows us perhaps a chance to rededicate ourselves to our planet, to each other, to life and love all around us. If we seize that chance.”

    He chose reflection over champagne

    Upon returning to Earth, Bezos offered Shatner champagne, but he turned down the offer because he needed a moment to collect his thoughts on what he had just experienced. He told Jimmy Fallon on The Tonight Show that the trip gave him a moment to reflect on his life. “What’s equally important is caring, loving, the planet is going to be inundated, unless we do something about it,” he told Fallon. “All the deep things that we should be thinking about, every so often, we need to be reminded. And that moonshot, that did it to me.”

    Just beautiful. Since most of us will never leave Earth, we can take inspiration from those who have, acknowledge our essential oneness and do everything in our power to protect our beautiful, life-giving home.

    Shatner shares more of his reflections on life on this planet and beyond in his most recent book, “Boldly Go: Reflections on a Life of Awe and Wonder.”

    This article originally appeared four years ago. It has been updated.

  • A Stanford study paid 36,000 people to stay off Facebook. The results were hard to argue with.
    Photo credit: CanvaA young woman looks at her phone in bed.
    ,

    A Stanford study paid 36,000 people to stay off Facebook. The results were hard to argue with.

    “Getting rid of my Facebook and Instagram accounts was the best thing I’ve ever done.”

    A large Stanford University study paid roughly 36,000 Facebook and Instagram users to log off in the weeks leading up to the 2020 presidential election and found that the people who stayed off felt measurably better.

    The study split participants into groups: about 275 were paid to deactivate their accounts for six weeks, while others logged off for just one week. Both groups showed improved emotional well-being compared to those who kept scrolling, but the effect was more pronounced for Facebook users who went longer without it.

    The results broke down along some interesting lines. Facebook users over 35 showed the biggest mood improvements, along with undecided voters and people without college degrees. Among Instagram users, the 18-to-24 group benefited most.

    None of this is entirely shocking in the abstract since most people have a pretty good intuition that less time doomscrolling means more mental breathing room. What makes this study notable is its scale. This wasn’t a self-selected group of digital detox enthusiasts. These were ordinary users, many of whom presumably went back to their feeds afterward, and the boost showed up clearly in the data.

    social media, mental health, Facebook, research, wellness
    Young people staring at their phones. Photo credit: Canva

    The comment section on ABC News’s video coverage said it more plainly: “Getting rid of my Facebook and Instagram accounts was the best thing I’ve ever done.” Another: “The worst thing about social media is that people are in it for hours and they don’t even realize it.”

    The study doesn’t argue that everyone should quit. It does suggest the relationship between habitual social media use and emotional well-being is real, measurable, and probably worth paying attention to.

  • Why don’t space photos ever show stars? NASA’s explanation is simpler than you’d think and a photo from Artemis II proves it.
    Photo credit: NASAImage of the Earth and Moon taken from outer space
    ,

    Why don’t space photos ever show stars? NASA’s explanation is simpler than you’d think and a photo from Artemis II proves it.

    It comes down to basic camera science. The same rules that apply to your phone apply to cameras 400,000 kilometers from Earth.

    Every time NASA releases a stunning image from space of something like the Earth glowing against blackness, or the Moon’s cratered surface in sharp detail, the same question follows: where are the stars?

    It happened again when NASA’s Artemis II crew, which launched April 1, 2026 and flew around the Moon before splashing down in the Pacific on April 10, began beaming back photos from their historic 10-day mission. The images were breathtaking. The backgrounds were pitch black. And the conspiracy theories started almost immediately.

    The camera can only do so much

    NASA’s answer, as explained in an Instagram post, is straightforward: it’s just how cameras work.

    A camera captures a limited range between the brightest and darkest parts of a scene. When you’re photographing the Moon or the Earth from space, you’re dealing with an enormous difference in brightness. The sunlit surface of the Moon is extraordinarily bright, while stars are extraordinarily dim. To expose correctly for the bright object in the foreground, the camera’s settings have to be adjusted in a way that makes the faint stars in the background vanish into black.

    Three settings control this. Shutter speed determines how long the camera’s sensor is exposed to light. ISO controls how sensitive that sensor is to light. And aperture determines how wide the lens opens. Getting the Moon in sharp, detailed focus means tuning all three for brightness, which is the opposite of what you’d need to pick up the faint glow of distant stars. You could technically try to capture both, but the result would be a blurry, overexposed mess where neither looks right.

    The same thing happens on Earth. Try taking a photo of the night sky next to a bright streetlight. The stars disappear. The light itself isn’t unusual. It’s physics.

    The photo that proves both sides

    The most remarkable image from the Artemis II mission accidentally became the perfect illustration of exactly this phenomenon. On April 6, during their seven-hour flyby of the Moon’s far side, the crew captured a total solar eclipse. The Moon completely blocked the Sun for nearly 54 minutes of totality, far longer than any eclipse visible from Earth’s surface.

    In that image, stars are clearly visible. Dozens of them, scattered across the frame around the dark disk of the Moon with its glowing halo of light. Venus appears as a bright silver glint on the edge. It’s one of the most striking photographs ever taken by humans in deep space.

    The reason the stars appear is the same reason they normally don’t: the object in the foreground is dark. With the Moon blocking the Sun, there’s no blinding bright surface to expose for. The camera settings could be adjusted to capture the dim light of distant stars, and they showed up exactly as they should.

    As NASA noted in the image description, stars are “typically too faint to see when imaging the Moon, but with the Moon in darkness stars are readily imaged.”

    A historic mission

    The Artemis II mission marked humanity’s return to the Moon’s vicinity for the first time since Apollo 17 in 1972. The crew included commander Reid Wiseman, pilot Victor Glover, and mission specialists Christina Koch and Jeremy Hansen of the Canadian Space Agency. They set multiple records. Koch became the first woman to travel beyond low Earth orbit. Glover became the first person of color to witness the lunar far side. Hansen became the first person from a nation other than the United States to go to the Moon. And the mission broke the all-time crewed distance record, reaching 406,771 kilometers from Earth, surpassing the mark set by Apollo 13 in 1970.

    The crew also captured an Earthset, with Earth sinking below the Moon’s horizon, that deliberately echoed the iconic Earthrise photo from Apollo 8 in 1968. They photographed ancient lava flows, impact craters, and surface fractures on the far side. They witnessed six meteoroid impact flashes on the darkened lunar surface.

    Koch described the experience with characteristic simplicity: “The Moon really is its own unique body in the Universe. It’s not just a poster in the sky that goes by. It’s a real place.”

    And it turns out space is full of stars. You just need the right conditions and the right camera settings to see them.

  • Investigative journalist reveals the simple way you can protect your  phone from getting hacked
    Photo credit: Daily Show/Youtube, CanvaJournalist Ronan Farrow explains how turning off your phone each night can protect you from getting hacked
    , , ,

    Investigative journalist reveals the simple way you can protect your  phone from getting hacked

    His simple tip can offer protection in a time of less-than-stellar privacy regulations.

    There are just so many ways for important information held on your phone to be swiped—from subscription based apps that secretly send private customer data to Facebook to fake accounts that get your friends to invest in some kind of fake crypto.

    And of course—this is more than a modern day inconvenience. It poses real threats to democracy and global human rights, which is why so many are calling for more regulations and safeguards. Of course, as with most regulations, change isn’t coming fast. Which isn’t good news, considering how rapidly technology evolves.

    However, Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist Ronan Farrow has an incredibly simple tip for preventing our phones from being hacked: Turn them off more often.

    Why Ronan Farrow says we should all be ‘freaking out’

    While appearing on the Daily Show to promote his new documentary, Surveilled, Farrow told host Desi Lydic that we as a society should be “freaking out” more about the lack of government restraints about spyware technology, saying that it could turn the country “into an Orwellian surveillance state,” affecting anyone who uses a device, essentially—not just political dissidents.

    But, as Farrow noted, turning your phone off and on every day is an easy way to protect yourself, since most current forms of spyware “will be foiled by a reboot.” And even if you aren’t, say, a journalist or a political activist (i.e. common targets for malware), you’re thwarting apps from monitoring your activity or collecting your data. And better still, you’re making it more difficult for hackers to steal information from your phone. Privacy protection aside, it’s a great way of just keeping your device healthy. Basically, it seems like the age-old solution for virtually all tech issues still holds up.

    More easy steps you can take right now

    ronan farrow, surveilled max, documentary, privacy, journalism, daily show, spyware, malware
    Remembering to turn it off…that’s a different challenge altogether. Photo credit: Canva

    There are a few other things worth turning off now and then, such as bluetooth and location devices when you’re not using them, according to the NSA. In addition, Farrow also suggested keeping devices updated, and perhaps most important of all, actually writing to your representative about the issue.

    However, when it comes to wrapping devices in tinfoil as a makeshift Faraday cage…that might not be the best use of one’s aluminum.

    “Experts vary on exactly how effective that approach is,” Farrow told Lydic, just before quipping, “we need better policies. Not just better tinfoil.”

    The documentary that started it all

    Expanding on Farrow’s 2022 New Yorker investagative exposé on the notorious spyware Pegasus, Surveilled, which is available to stream on Max, delves into the multibillion-dollar industry of commercial spyware and its potential threats, making it evidently clear that this is not an issue for the elite few, or one to ignore until the future.

    On a (slightly) brighter note, Farrow debuted another new work in 2025, this time a true crime investigative podcast, titled Not a Very Good Murderer, which he himself narrates. Find it on Audible.

    This article originally appeared two years ago. It has been updated.

  • 93-year-old Gene Kranz shares how he felt watching the Artemis II mission
    Photo credit: NASA & Christopher MichelGene Kranz at Mission Control in 1965 (left) and in 2022 (right).
    ,

    93-year-old Gene Kranz shares how he felt watching the Artemis II mission

    Kranz was played by Ed Harris in the 1995 film “Apollo 13.”

    In April 1970, a year after Apollo 11 put the first man on the Moon, three astronauts set off to complete NASA’s third lunar landing. Instead, two days after the Apollo 13 launch, the mission became one of simple survival. An explosion on the spacecraft caused critical damage, forcing the crew and everyone at Mission Control to problem-solve in real time.

    As lead flight director, Gene Kranz was in charge of the Apollo 13 mission. (You may remember actor Ed Harris portraying Kranz in the 1995 film Apollo 13.) His leadership helped avert disaster, bringing the astronauts home safely. In addition to other programs, Kranz served as a flight director for seven Apollo missions, including Apollo 11.

    Now, at 93 years old, he has watched humanity return to the Moon. In an interview with WTVG-TV, Kranz shared how he felt witnessing the Artemis II mission more than five decades after the Apollo missions he helped oversee.

    “It took me back, made me young again,” Kranz said when asked about seeing the new images of the Moon. “I’m 93 right now, and I was in my thirties, 34, when we landed on the Moon. And it’s like starting all over again. And I just wish I’d talked to the NASA interns, the new people coming in…We must have about—the last session was about three weeks ago—we had about 60 of them, and I looked at these kids, and I was jealous. Anything I’ve ever done, I would trade them to be in their position.”

    Kranz said that looking at images of the Moon makes him think of the astronauts and controllers he worked with, as well as the material they brought back.

    “And [I] just say, ‘Thank God we had a mission,’” he said.

    Gene Kranz
    Gene Kranz working in the Mission Control Center in Houston in 1965. Photo credit: NASA

    Now we’re “back on track,” Kranz said, as Artemis program takes us to the Moon to build a habitat. “It’s going to be a new era in space exploration.”

    Kranz said he’s “too proud to even describe” how he feels about NASA reaching this point.

    “You know, I came in as a young pup,” he said. “I was a fighter pilot—I did flight test. I was there in the very beginning. And all I can think of are the great people that I worked with that made all of this possible.”

    Kranz shared that he had written his high school thesis on how humans would land on the Moon. It was titled The Design and Possibilities of an Interplanetary Mission.

    Gene Kranz
    Gene Kranz working at his flight director’s console in the Mission Operations Control Room, 1965. Photo credit: NASA

    “It is really strange to have written that description, written in that term paper—by the way, I got a 98—and be the person that actually took Neil Armstrong to the Moon for the first time,” he said. “I lived as an explorer. I lived with explorers.”

    Kranz also shared one of the downsides of the Apollo missions in the 1960s and ’70s: the quality of the photo and video technology of the time wasn’t equal to the task.

    “Now I see the imagery we have, and I said, ‘My God, if we had that image, we could have better directed the crew when they were on surface to go pick up that rocket, to go do this thing right on the line,’” he said. “I think we could have had a much better operation. But we did the best with what we had.”

    Indeed, they did—and not just when it came to images. When the fate of the Apollo 13 crew was up in the air (or, more accurately, out in space), Kranz famously declared, “Failure is not an option.” Not only did Apollo mission scientists do the best with what they had, but they also engineered ways to pull off one of the most harrowing feats in human history.

    How remarkable that this legendary leader in lunar exploration has lived to see a second round of Moon missions, and what a delight it is to hear him share his reaction.

  • A researcher published a paper on a made-up disease. Then people started getting diagnosed.
    Photo credit: Canva PhotosA medical researcher invented a fictional disease, and then AI started handing out diagnoses.
    ,

    A researcher published a paper on a made-up disease. Then people started getting diagnosed.

    If you’ve got red, itchy eyes, you might just have the (totally made up) “Bixonimania”

    There have been a lot of dubious medical research papers published over the years. Famously, there was the 1998 case series that kicked off what would become an entire movement of vaccine skepticism by falsely linking them to autism. Before that, there was a whole slew of research bought and paid for by the sugar industry designed to “downplay the risks of sugar and highlight the hazards of fat,” according to NPR.

    Rarely, however, are studies so heavily, and intentionally, fictionalized as a paper that quietly popped up in some small corners of the Internet in early 2024.

    Researcher tests AI hypothesis

    Almira Osmanovic Thunström, medical researcher at the University of Gothenburg, knew that Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, Claude, Google Gemini, etc. draw from an expansive knowledge base they’re trained on.

    Training data can include anything and everything from books to Reddit posts to song lyrics to articles published in reputable medical journals.

    Crucially, hundreds of millions of people log into these AI services every year to ask about symptoms and receive medical advice. It’s the natural evolution of the “Just check WebMD” approach. Thunström wanted to see if she could effect the output of these LLMs by planting bogus ideas into their training data.

    So, she made up a disease. She called it “Bixonimania,” which includes symptoms such as sore, itchy eyes and discolored eyelids. Then, she fabricated an entire research study around the condition and uploaded a “preprint” of the paper to a couple of servers—a preprint being a version of the research paper that has not yet undergone peer review, but is still made available for the public to read.

    doctors, medicine, hospital, medical research, research paper, hoaxes, viral hoax, AI, artificial intelligence, healthcare, wellness, culture
    That’s “bixonimania” alright. Photo Credit: Canva Photos

    Finally, with the seeds planted, and the false study publicly available for anyone (or anything) to see, Thunström waited to see if LLMs would begin spitting out “Bixonimania” as a diagnosis.

    Fake disease finds serious legs in AI chats

    If the experiment sounds ethically dubious, that’s fair, but Thunström made every effort to make it clear that the findings were completely false. Not only did she collaborate heavily with an ethics consultant on the experiment, she left plenty of breadcrumbs along the way.

    For starters, the lead author of the study is listed as “Lazljiv Izgubljenovic,” a person who does not exist. Translated from Slovenian, the name means “The Lying Loser.”

    Second was the name of the disease itself, which was chosen to be ridiculous sounding. “I wanted to be really clear to any physician or any medical staff that this is a made-up condition, because no eye condition would be called mania—that’s a psychiatric term,” Thunström said per Nature.com.

    Early in the paper, the text “this entire paper is made up,” appears. As does a note that all of the fifty so-called “participants” were completely fictional. Toward the end, Thunström thanks such esteemed colleagues as “Professor Maria Bohm at The Starfleet Academy … onboard the USS Enterprise” and partners like “the Professor Sideshow Bob Foundation.”

    Despite the warnings, and the fact that (nearly) any qualified human reading the paper would know it was a fake, it began showing up in search results and even had the authority to appear on Google Scholar.

    AI chatbots began spitting out “Bixonimania” as a possible diagnosis to users within just a few weeks—users who were probably suffering from eye irritation due to too much screen exposure. Thunström even has the screenshots to prove that certain models, including Microsoft Copilot and Google Gemini, still refer to the disease as a “recently” proposed or described condition.

    Then something even stranger happened.

    “Bixonimania” gets cited by other research papers

    The “Bixonimania” paper was never peer-reviewed or published in an official journal, for obvious reasons. But, soon enough, it was referenced and cited in a new paper that was peer-reviewed.

    “Bixonimania is an emerging form of POM [periorbital melanosis] linked to blue light exposure; further research on the mechanism is underway,” the authors confidently wrote.

    The papers referencing the made-up disease were later retracted.

    More than just AI trickery

    The TL;DR? People rarely read beyond the headline. In fact, one study (a real one!) found that more than 75% of people who share an article online haven’t even read it. Most of us trust anything that appears in a medical journal.

    You’d think physicians and researchers would be more thorough, but the truth is they’re just as susceptible to time crunches, lapses of focus, and even taking shortcuts in their work from time to time. In other words, they’re only human.

    This fascinating experiment isn’t just about how a researcher managed to fool AI, it speaks to bigger problems with how we use the technology and our daily media habits.

    “The solution isn’t just better filters. It’s better habits, better norms, and better expectations around how we read, verify and cite. Human‑centred resilience has to come first,” an astute commenter wrote.

    “This expose has huge implications for academia and ‘googling your symptoms’. I was/am worried about being the one taking the hit for a controversial experiment of this sort. It was done with very high guardrails and ethical considerations, I hope everyone reading will take that in to account,” Thunström elaborated on LinkedIn.

    She recently decided to retract the papers and keep them private somewhere curious users can read them, but they’ll no longer be crawled by LLMs.

    doctors, medicine, hospital, medical research, research paper, hoaxes, viral hoax, AI, artificial intelligence, healthcare, wellness, culture
    LLMs are powerful tools, but they can be dangerous. Photo Credit: Canva Photos

    “The bixonimania experiment was never about exposing LLMs as flawed tools, or arguing they have no place in medicine. They do. It was about demonstrating that any system can be infiltrated and that researchers who blindly cite AI-generated references really should read what they’re quoting. I know this firsthand,” she says in another LinkedIn post, adding that she herself has been duped by AI-generated summaries of her own research papers.

    “The failure wasn’t the system. It was how I used it.”

  • How Romania took its national recycling rate from 12 percent to 94 percent in just two years
    Photo credit: CanvaRomania’s recycling revolution inspires Europe.
    ,

    How Romania took its national recycling rate from 12 percent to 94 percent in just two years

    Being late to the game may actually have given the country an advantage.

    Every week, Dana Chitucescu grabs a bag, walks around her home in the Transylvanian village of Pianu de Jos. She’s collecting something her neighbors happily hand over: empty bottles and cans.

    The 51-year-old brings them to her local shop, drops them off, and walks out with 40 brand-new Romanian leu in her pocket, about $9 USD. She uses it to feed her seven cats.

    It’s a small thing, nothing, really. But it also, somehow, encapsulates the story of how an entire country is changing the way it thinks about trash.

    From zero to hero: Romania used to be Europe’s worst recycler

    Not long ago, Romania ranked dead last in the European Union for recycling. Three-quarters of the country’s waste—74%—went straight into landfills. The environmental impact was catastrophic: rivers became clogged with plastic. Picturesque roadsides were buried under litter.

    Romania, recycling, revolution, environment, cans
    Photo credit: CanvaThe secret to Romania’s success isn’t complicated.

    The European Environment Agency even flagged Romania as being at serious risk of missing its recycling targets for years in a row. It looked like a problem without a solution.

    Then came RetuRO.

    The idea is simple

    Here’s how RetuRO works: when you buy a bottled or canned drink in Romania—water, soda, beer, anything—you pay an extra deposit of .50 Romanian leu. That’s about 11 cents in US dollars. When you finish the drink and bring the empty container back to the store, you get your money back. Voila!

    That’s it. That’s the whole idea.

    On top of that, Romania has made it ridiculously simple for citizens to recycle. Supermarkets have automated reverse vending machines that scan the container, crush it, and then credit your deposit on the spot. Smaller shops handle returns manually. And crucially, the program accepts plastic, aluminum, and glass; the latter, which most countries’ deposit systems skip altogether because glass is heavy and expensive to transport.

    RetuRO launched in November 2023 as a partnership between the Romanian government, beverage producers, and retailers, meaning everyone had skin in the game. Everyone had a reason to want to make it work.

    What happened next was remarkable

    Within months, something shifted in Romania. The recycling numbers, of course—those went through the roof—but also, something deeper. The way people regarded bottles and cans changed. Containers stopped feeling like garbage and became, instead, money left on the table.

    In the peak summer months, 94% of beverage containers were being returned. Later, in January 2026, the return rate hit 108%. That meant Romanians were returning more containers than were even sold that month, as people dug old bottles out of storage. Nine out of ten Romanians have used the system at least once. Six in ten do it every single week.

    Since launch, over 9 billion containers have been returned.

    “It is a zero-to-hero story,” said Gemma Webb, RetuRO’s CEO. “You go to Romania now, you don’t see a bottle anywhere. It was the impossible made possible. Everybody’s very proud… we are the largest fully integrated deposit return system globally.”

    It’s not just about bottles. It’s about people

    Yes, Romania’s story is impressive. But not because of the infrastructure or the statistics alone. It’s the way RetuRO has fundamentally changed Romanian citizens’ views on recycling.

    Grandparents who never recycled in their lives have found a new weekly routine (and a small but real source of income). Parents use their trips to the return machine as a chance to teach their kids that taking care of the planet doesn’t have to be a sacrifice; it can just be Tuesday. Young Romanians in their 20s now describe recycling as part of their identity.

    Dana Chitucescu’s brother lives in Spain, a country without a comparable system. Apparently, he’s jealous. “He says it’s one of the few things Romania does exceptionally well,” she told The Guardian. “He’s right.”

    Not to mention, the program has also added over $346 million to Romani’s GDP and created more than 2,000 new jobs: all within its first year of full operation. Romanian recyclers no longer need to import plastic raw material, because for the first time, there’s enough good-quality recycled Polyethylene Terephthalate (or PET, the clear, lightweight plastic used to make the vast majority of beverage bottles) being collected domestically to meet industry demand.

    The rest of the world is paying attention

    Government leaders from Poland, Turkey, Bulgaria, and beyond have traveled to Romania specifically to learn how to replicate this recycling scheme. In the European Parliament, Romania serves as the benchmark model for deposit-return programs.

    The secret to Romania’s success isn’t complicated. They made the recycling incentive real and immediate, simplified participation by creating a universal system (every retailer who sells drinks must accept returns by law), and trusted its citizens to do the right thing.

    What could this look like where you live?

    Romania’s recycling journey is proof that a recycling revolution doesn’t require a perfect society, unlimited funding, or decades of gradual habit change. It requires the right system, one built around real human behavior, not wishful thinking.

    Sometimes, all it takes is a bag, a short walk to the corner shop, and eleven cents.

    Or, that’s how it starts, anyway. That’s how nine billion bottles get returned.

Uncategorized

8 small, simple acts of kindness you use to brighten someone’s day

Family

Boomer dad plays song to comfort his daughter going through divorce and it’s everything

Health

Researchers found that scrolling while pooping dramatically raises your chance of getting hemorrhoids

Making Sense of Science

Why does a facial itch feel a lot different than one on your arm? Science just figured it out.