Science & Technology

History books are filled with photos of people we know primarily from their life stories or own writings. To picture them in real life, we must rely on sparse or grainy black-and-white photos and our own imaginations.

Now, thanks to some tech geeks with a dream, we can get a bit closer to seeing what iconic historical figures looked like in real life.

Most of us know Frederick Douglass as the famous abolitionist—a formerly enslaved Black American who wrote extensively about his experiences—but we may not know that he was also the most photographed American in the 19th century. In fact, we have more portraits of Frederick Douglass than we do of Abraham Lincoln.

This plethora of photos was on purpose. Douglass felt that photographs—as opposed to caricatures that were so often drawn of Black people—captured "the essential humanity of its subjects" and might help change how white people saw Black people.

In other words, he used photos to humanize himself and other Black people in white people's eyes.

Imagine what he'd think of the animating technology utilized on myheritage.com that allows us to see what he might have looked like in motion. La Marr Jurelle Bruce, a Black Studies professor at the University of Maryland, shared videos he created using photos of Douglass and the My Heritage Deep Nostalgia technology on Twitter.

Keep Reading Show less

Most of us set out on our parenting journey with the best of intentions to keep our kids off of screens, and some of us may even succeed at it to some degree. But we live in the digital age, and especially in a year like the one we've just had, parents also need to utilize the tools we have to stay sane.

Since smartphones make it so most of us carry a screen around with us at all times, it's easy for parents to pull up a child's favorite show or movie to put on when the going gets tough. What's not so easy is keeping a kid from touching the screen or pushing buttons that take them out of the video (best case scenario) or mess up your apps or settings on your phone (I once had a kid accidentally do a hard reset on my iPhone by accident—oof).

Apparently, folks with Android phones have something called "Kid Mode" that takes care of that issue with one step. For parents with iPhones, it's not nearly so simple.

However, dad Ryan Chowansky has shared how to do it in a TikTok video that's been viewed more than 25 million times. The steps aren't super intuitive, but once you get it down it only takes a few seconds to play a video on the phone while disabling the screen and buttons so a kid can't muck anything up.

Here's the video with step-by-step instructions below:

Keep Reading Show less

As of today, more than 27 million Americans have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, a number that exceeds the 26.6 million Americans who have tested positive for the coronavirus.

This milestone is significant for several reasons. Having one effective vaccine developed and distributed less than a year into a novel virus pandemic is extraordinary, much less having multiple vaccines already going into arms at this point. Increasing numbers of vaccinated people is a sign of hope that we may finally able to get out in front of this virus. Those most at risk—healthcare workers and our elders—are first in line for the vaccine, which means theoretically we should see hospitalization and death rates dropping.

But most notably, having equal numbers of people vaccinated as testing positive for the virus offers us a statistical picture of the risk-benefit ratio of the vaccine. Infectious disease specialists have explained that the vaccines are safe and effective, but some people are still wary. People worry about potential adverse reactions or unknown long-term effects of these new vaccines.

Here are the numbers as of now:

COVID cases: 26.6 million

COVID deaths: 450,000+

COVID vaccines: 27 million

COVID vaccine deaths: 0

Keep Reading Show less

As a writer, few things grate my nerves like people reacting to a headline without actually reading the article, and yet it happens all the time. I've had people try to defend this practice ("It's your fault for writing the headline that way!") but no matter how it's written, a headline is never going to be a full story. Never ever. An article's worth of information cannot be encapsulated in 90-characters-or-less, and distilling the essence of a piece in a way that is both informative and inspires people to read it is more complicated than it looks.

On that note, let's talk about the Johnson and Johnson vaccine news that came out today, because people who don't read beyond the headlines are getting a skewed picture of the efficacy of this vaccine. Here are some samples of the wording major news organizations used in their headlines and social media share texts this morning:

"Covid vaccine: Single dose Covid vaccine 66% effective"BBC

"Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine 66% effective in global trial, company says" Fox News

"Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine is 72% effective in the U.S., and 66% overall in large trial"Reuters

"Johnson & Johnson's single-dose Covid-19 vaccine was 66 percent effective at preventing moderate and severe disease in a global study"Politico

"Johnson & Johnson vaccine is 66% effective in preventing moderate to severe COVID-19, a global study finds" NPR

"Single-shot Johnson & Johnson vaccine 66% effective against moderate to severe covid-19, but worked less well in variant hot spot"Washington Post

I shudder to think of how many people are going to glance through the news, see headlines like this, and say to themselves "Oh, I guess the J & J vaccine basically sucks compared to the 95% effective mRNA ones." And I lament how many will not have the far more appropriate reaction of, "Wow, the J & J vaccine is 100% effective at preventing hospitalizations and death from COVID! How amazing!"

That's right. Zero hospitalizations and zero deaths in the 44,000 person trial—a hugely significant detail you'd miss if you only read those "66% effective" headlines. The vaccine is also 85% effective at preventing severe illness (presumably meaning bad symptoms but not quite bad enough to need hospitalization) 28 days after the shot, and 100% at preventing severe illness 49 days after. How is that not incredible news?





To read the 66% headlines—and even some full articles, surprisingly—you'd never know how effective this vaccine actually is in the ways that count the most. You might even assume that statistic means that 34% of people still have a chance of getting COVID and dying after getting this vaccine, when that's not the case at all.

The primary goal of COVID immunization is to keep people from dying and/or getting severely ill from the virus so we can return to normalcy as soon as possible. This vaccine does that. That's the detail that should be dominating the headlines. Of course, we'd love to see a vaccine that prevents all sickness, but that's a tall order for any inoculation. Even the 66% efficacy is good for a new vaccine, and if anything, it just goes to show how incredibly effective the mRNA versions are. But the bottom line is this is a life-saving vaccine, full stop.

That doesn't mean it's perfect or just as effective as the mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna. There are still questions about whether or not these vaccines can prevent people from carrying the virus, and there are some concerns about decreases in vaccine effectiveness on some of the variants we're seeing pop up around the world.

But there's a reason epidemiologists are still referring to this vaccine as a "game-changer."




One key feature of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine is that it only requires a single dose. Considering the logistical and cost challenges of getting people to show up for two shots several weeks apart, that's a big deal. The vaccine also only requires refrigeration to be shipped and stored—unlike the Pfizer vaccine, which has to be kept at minus 70 degrees celsius—which opens up the door to getting far more people vaccinated far more quickly in far more places around the globe. In a pandemic like this one, those details do indeed change the game.

A repeated lament I've seen from many public health officials is that so much news coverage and messaging on COVID vaccines downplays how amazing it is that we even have them at this point, much less how effective they are. For a novel virus, vaccine development has gone incredibly well, and it is a testament to modern science and that we have several effective vaccines less than a year into a pandemic.

All of this is fabulous pandemic news, but you'd never know it if you only read the headlines.



The moral of this story is please, please, please always read articles in full before reacting. As much as I wish news outlets had avoided choosing to highlight the "66% effective" stat over the "100% hospitalization and death prevention" stat, I also know that there's no perfect way to write a headline. We're all bombarded by news and links, but people have to get over the habit of assuming a headline has all of the info, or even the most important info, and get in the habit of clicking and reading.

And if you've made it to this line, thank you for being part of the solution and not part of the problem. High five.