Connect with us


Victorians worried about books like we worry about iPhones

Examination by ophthalmoscope in JF Phillips’ Ophthalmic Surgery and Treatment, 1869.

Wellcome Library

From concerns over blue light to digital strain and dryness, headlines today often worry how smartphones and computer screens might be affecting the health of our eyes. But while the technology may be new, this concern certainly isn’t. Since Victorian times people have been concerned about how new innovations might damage eyesight.

In the 1800s, the rise of mass print was both blamed for an increase in eye problems and was responsible for dramatizing the fallibility of vision too. As the number of known eye problems increased, the Victorians predicted that without appropriate care and attention Britain’s population would become blind. In 1884, an article in The Morning Post newspaper proposed that:

The culture of the eyes and efforts to improve the faculty of seeing must become matters of attentive consideration and practice, unless the deterioration is to continue and future generations are to grope about the world purblind.

The 19th century was the time when opthamology became a more prominent field of healthcare. New diagnostic technologies, such as test charts were introduced and spectacles became a more viable treatment method for a range of vision errors. But though more sight problems were being treated effectively, this very increase created alarm, and a subsequent perceived need to curtail any growth.

In 1889 the Illustrated London News questioned:

To what are we coming? … Now we are informed by men of science that the eyes used so effectively by our forefathers will not suffice for us, and that there is a prospect of England becoming purblind.

The article continued, considering potential causes for this acceleration, and concluded that it could be partly explained by evolution and inheritance.

Urban myopia

Other commentators looked to “modern life” for explanation, and attributed the so-called “deterioration of vision” to the built environment, the rise of print, compulsory education, and a range of new innovations such as steam power. In 1892, an article, published in The Nineteenth Century: A Monthly Review, reflected that the changing space of Victorian towns and lighting conditions were an “inestimable benefit” that needed to be set against a “decidedly lower sight average.” Similarly, a number of other newspapers reported on this phenomenon, headlining it as “urban myopia.”

In 1898, a feature published in The Scottish Review—ironically entitled “The Vaunts of Modern Progress”—proposed that defective eyesight was “exclusively the consequence of the present conditions of civilized life.” It highlighted that many advances being discussed in the context of “progress”—including material prosperity, expansion of industry, and the rise of commerce—had a detrimental effect on the body’s nervous system and visual health.

Reading advice from JD Browning

Reading advice from JD Browning’s 1887 book Our Eyes and How to Preserve Them from Infancy to Old Age.

Wellcome Library

Another concern of the time—sedentariness—was also linked to the rise in eye problems. Better transport links and new leisure activities that required the person to be seated meant people had more time to read. Work changed as well, with lower-class jobs moving away from manual labor and the written word thought to have superseded the spoken one. While we now focus on “screen time,” newspapers and periodicals emphasized the negative effects of a “reading age” (the spread of the book and popular print).

Education to blame

In a similar manner to today, schools were blamed for the problem too. Reading materials, lighting conditions, desk space, and the advent of compulsory education were all linked to the rise in diagnosed conditions. English ophthalmologist Robert Brudenell Carter, in his government-led study, Eyesight in Schools, reached the balanced conclusion that while schooling conditions may be a problem, more statistics were required to fully assess the situation. Though Carter did not wish to “play the part of an alarmist,” a number of periodicals dramatized their coverage with phrases such as “The Evils of Our School System.”

Related: Is my headache actually eye strain?

The problem with all of these new environmental conditions was that they were considered “artificial.” To emphasize this point, medical men frequently compared their findings of poor eye health against the superior vision of “savages” and the effect of captivity on the vision of animals. This, in turn, gave a more negative interpretation of the relationship between civilization and “progress,” and conclusions were used to support the idea that deteriorating vision was an accompaniment of the urban environment and modern leisure pursuits—specific characteristics of the Western world.

And yet the Victorians were undeterred and continued with the very modern progress that they blamed for eyesight problems. Instead, new protective eyewear was developed that sought to protect the eye from dust and flying particles, as well as from the bright lights at seaside resorts, and artificial lighting in the home.

Despite their fears, the country did not become “purblind.” Neither is Britain now an “island full of round-backed, blear-eyed book worms” as predicted. While stories reported today tend to rely on more rigorous research when it comes to screen time and eye health, it just goes to show that “modernity” has long been a cause for concern.

Want more news like this?

Sign up to receive our email newsletter and never miss an update!

By submitting above, you agree to our privacy policy.

Gemma Almond is a PhD Researcher at Swansea University. This article was originally featured on The Conversation.

Continue Reading


Video games workers create union to demand rights

By Bethan Staton, news reporter

Workers in the video games industry have formed a union for the first time in the UK.

Excessive and unpaid overtime, precarious contracts and discrimination are all serious problems in the industry, according the the Games Workers' Union, which launched on Friday.

Now it is hoping to use collective organising to fix a "broken sector and create an ethical industry", according to founding member Dec Peach.

"For as long as I can remember it has been considered normal for games workers to endure zero-hours contracts, excessive unpaid overtime, and even sexism and homophobia as the necessary price to pay for the privilege of working in the industry," he said.

When the union holds its first meeting on Sunday, one of the biggest concerns for Mr Peach and his follow members is likely to be "crunch" – the practice of excessive unpaid overtime that's common in the industry.

In a 2016 survey by the International Games Developers' Association (IGDA), 51% of game developers said their job involved "crunch time" and a further 44% reported working long or extended hours.

Karn Bianco, a general programmer and GWU UK spokesperson, told Sky News that when he started in the industry he would work around 80 hours a week, much of which was unpaid.

"It was voluntary then, because I was so excited to be working in this industry," he said, estimating his average working week at around 80 hours. "But it didn't take long for it to affect me, and I started making an effort to work less."

Force leaders to debate on TV

Force leaders to debate on TV

More than 120,000 people have signed the petition – have you?

Burnout is common in the video games industry. Mr Bianco said it's normal for people to last five years or so, then move on to other areas of work where conditions and pay are better.

Crunch is not the only concern. Surveys show a majority of games developers think diversity is important, but scandals like GamerGate – which saw targeted harassment, death and rape threats against women in the industry – have suggested the scene can be hostile to minorities and women.

"Diversity and inclusion is a problem in what's a majority white male industry," Mr Bianco.

"There's a lot of toxicity that doesn't necessarily come from that but certainly isn't helped. And it's something companies have historically been bad at tackling."

GWU-UK is part of the global Games Workers' Union, but in the UK it is a branch of Independent Workers of Great Britain, a union that's made waves unionising "gig-economy" workforces like Uber drivers or cycle couriers.

Some games workers share much in common with these precariously employed groups.

More from UK

  • Visitors evacuated as fire breaks out at Chester Zoo

  • Grieving mum urges parents to discuss organ donation after son's tragic death

  • Jasmin Mistry jailed for four years after admitting £250,000 cancer lie

  • Waitrose to take glitter out of Christmas for the environment

  • Rescued yachtswoman Susie Goodall would do it again 'in a heartbeat'

  • Refugees hoping to top Christmas singles chart with festive charity track

According to the IGDA, 27% of employed developers had worked for three to five employers in the last five years – a figure that indicates serious volatility in the industry.

People are welcome to join the union if they are involved in any area of video game production. Artists, producers, programmers and testers – both freelance and staff – will be part of the branch.

Continue Reading


Police to test facial recognition in Westminster

The Metropolitan Police is to test live facial recognition in Westminster as part of an ongoing trial of the controversial technology.

A deployment of the surveillance software will take place on Monday 17 and Tuesday 18 December in and around Soho, Piccadilly Circus and Leicester Square.

It will be used "overtly" with a uniformed presence and information leaflets available to the public, the Met said.

All faces on the database used during the deployment are people wanted by police and the courts.

Members of the public could decline to be scanned, the Met said.

Force leaders to debate on TV

Force leaders to debate on TV

More than 120,000 people have signed the petition – have you?

Ivan Balhatchet, strategic lead for live facial technology for the Metropolitan Police Service, said: "The Met is currently developing the use of live facial recognition technology and we have committed to 10 trials during the coming months. We are now coming to the end of our trials when a full evaluation will be completed.

"We continue to engage with many different stakeholders, some who actively challenge our use of this technology.

"In order to show transparency and continue constructive debate, we have invited individuals and groups with varying views on our use of facial recognition technology to this deployment."

Privacy campaigners have repeatedly expressed concerns around the use of such technology, labelling it "dangerous and lawless".

In May, campaigners from Big Brother Watch used a Freedom of Information request to obtain figures which showed 98% of "matches" found by the technology during earlier Met Police tests were wrong.

The group now claims new figures show the technology has got worse, with inaccuracies rising to 100%.

Taylor Swift at the Billboard Music Awards
Image: Facial recognition software was reportedly used at a Taylor Swift gig

Big Brother Watch director Silkie Carlo said: "The police's use of this authoritarian surveillance tool in total absence of a legal or democratic basis is alarming.

"Live facial recognition is a form of mass surveillance that, if allowed to continue, will turn members of the public into walking ID cards.

More from Metropolitan Police

  • Moped thieves rammed by police cars in Met clampdown

  • Met Police wants more female firearm officers to address gender imbalance

  • 'I saved a child's life during mosque attack'

  • Car speeds away from mosque after 'hate attack'

  • Lucy McHugh murder: Facebook urged to give police access to suspect's account

  • Met police 'at breaking point' as more than £1bn of property sold

"As with all mass surveillance tools, it is the general public who suffer more than criminals. The fact that it has been utterly useless so far shows what a terrible waste of police time and public money it is. It is well overdue that police drop this dangerous and lawless technology."

Earlier this week, Rolling Stone reported facial recognition software was used in a kiosk of a Taylor Swift concert in the US and images gathered cross-referenced with a database of the singer's known stalkers.

Continue Reading


Self-driving, burrito-carrying rovers are going to talk to us with their eyes

Part of the way this rover communicates is with its eyes.


If autonomous rovers are going to start bringing us burritos and pasta and maybe even the occasional vegetable dish—as delivery company Postmates hopes that they will—they’re going to have to learn some social skills. For one, they’ll need to figure out how to make their way down crowded sidewalks. They’ll also have to communicate with people to let them know what they’re doing, since autonomous bots, and self-driving cars, can’t talk or gesture the way humans do.

The latest droid built for lugging takeout is a servile bot called Serve, and Postmates designed it to make short-haul deliveries in cities. To know what’s going on, it has a lidar sensor on top, in which spinning lasers let it perceive objects around it and know how far away they are. (It’s similar to what you’ll find guiding self-driving cars on the roads.) That’s not all. Behind each artificial eye is a camera, with six more imaging devices spread around the ‘bot. In its cargo bin is another sensor that allows Postmates to know if there is a package in there or not.

“One of our key decisions early on was to rely heavily on perception and the robot’s ability to see the environment,” says Ali Kashani, the vice president for robotics at Postmates. (That’s where the lidar sensor really helps.) Since the sidewalk is “a very chaotic environment,” he points out, the bot needs to be able to take it all in and figure out what to do.

This robot, and others like it, also must be able to signal their intentions to the organic beings walking alongside them (just like self-driving cars sometimes do). For that, it has a number of approaches. One is using its eyes, and another is a colorful light ring that goes around the top.

Say it wants to let a pedestrian know that it’s going to yield for them, Kashani says. “It would use its eyes; it would look down,” he explains. It can orient its wheels in such a way that it indicates it’s not about to roll in front of them, and the light ring on top enters a “resting mode, which is like a breathing pattern.”

“All of those together imply that’s it’s going to stop,” he adds. It can also use the lights on top like a turn signal, which is intuitive, and its peepers come in handy with that kind of maneuver, too. “Its eyes also look left and right when it’s turning left and right,” says Kashani.

And using eye movements—and other non-verbal cues—is a good strategy, says Aaron Steinfeld, an associate research professor at Carnegie Mellon University who focuses on human-robot interaction and advanced transportation systems. He likes that the rover is capable of “deferential behavior,” which he says isn’t common with robots.

Serve is intended for sidewalks, and Steinfeld says that environment is challenging. It’s easy for people to move fluidly with a crowd—they usually can do it (with varying degrees of success) while staring at a smartphone. For a bot, that’s a lot. “We actually have active research on robots navigating socially around people when they’re moving,” he says. “And it’s really tricky to do this well.”

On easy way for a robot to handle that scenario? “If they’re willing to have the robot wait for a crowd to get past, they can solve a lot of those problems just by being patient,” Steinfeld says.

Postmates says they plan to use Serve in Los Angeles area at first, and that its intended chore is to “move small objects over short distances efficiently.” The electric rover can travel 30 miles on one charge and is capable of schlepping 50 pounds, they say.

And of course, Postmates and its Serve bot aren’t the first company intending to use robots to deliver goods, either on sidewalks or the street. One well-know delivery robot company is Starship Technologies, and then there’s Nuro, which makes a larger self-driving robot designed for the streets and delivering groceries. According to a representative for Nuro, they plan to start actually using those bots, called the R1, “soon” in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Continue Reading


YouTube star banned from UK theme parks and TV studios

A YouTube star who trespassed at the Big Brother house and climbed a rollercoaster at Thorpe Park has been banned from theme parks and TV studios across most of the country.

Ally Law, who has more than two million subscribers on the site, filmed as he climbed the Stealth ride in July 2017.

He and a friend also entered the Big Brother House unlawfully in January this year.

The 21-year-old, from Southampton, has been given an interim criminal behaviour order (CBO) which covers England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

It also bans him from areas of a bridge or building not open to the public, any commercial property outside business hours, and all properties owned by Merlin Entertainments.

On Twitter, Law said the CBO "stops me from doing basically ANYTHING…"

Other videos on Law's channel include him scaling various tall buildings without safety gear and sneaking into other attractions.

"Ally Law has offended all over the country and we used evidence from all over in our application because we know that he has been causing numerous police forces issues for some time," said Inspector Nick Pinkerton from Surrey Police.

He said it had taken a year to get the CBO against Law.

The YouTuber could be arrested if he breaches the order and there is a potential five-year prison sentence if convicted.

Law will also be back in court in March over the Big Brother incident, telling his followers this week that he could face jail time.

Force leaders to debate on TV

Force leaders to debate on TV

More than 120,000 people have signed the petition – have you?

Continue Reading


Ofcom launches review of broadband prices

Telecoms regulator Ofcom has launched a review of broadband pricing for loyal customers amid concerns they are paying more than they need to.

Ofcom figures show that 94% of UK homes and offices can now get superfast broadband, but less than half have taken it up.

Around four million households with old-style, basic broadband have passed their initial contract period and could switch to superfast for the same – or less – money than they currently pay.

Customers who take a landline and broadband service together are paying an average of 19% more once their discounted deal has expired, Ofcom found.

Sharon White, Ofcom chief executive, said: "We're concerned that many loyal broadband customers aren't getting the best deal they could.

"So we're reviewing broadband pricing practices and ensuring customers get clear, accurate information from their provider about the best deals they offer."

Ofcom announced a range of measures to help people get the best deal.

It called on broadband providers to tell customers about their best available deal, both when their deals are coming to an end and every year after that if they don't change their deal.

The watchdog is also launching a review of broadband companies' pricing practices – examining why some customers pay more than others, and whether vulnerable customers need extra protections to ensure they get a good deal.

Ofcom has already launched a website, Boost Your Broadband, that tells people what broadband they can get in their area, and offers advice on how to find the best deal.

The broadband market is highly competitive, with superfast broadband packages now available from around £20 a month, Ofcom said.

More from Business

  • Ashley and The Entertainer toy with Hamleys takeover

  • Fee for travelling to the EU after Brexit revealed

  • LIVE: 'What do you actually want?' EU leaders ask Theresa May

  • Sky Views: Don't switch off… the fall of small energy firms affects us all

  • Big four auditors face market share cap after CMA probe

  • Brexit blamed as housing market hits six-year low

Alex Neill, managing director of home products and services at Which?, said: "Our research has shown that many UK households are paying huge loyalty premiums for staying on the same tariff when they could be paying less for a faster internet service."

He added: "If you are unhappy with your internet service, or you think you could be paying too much, you should look to switch provider or try haggling for a better deal. A few minutes of your time could potentially save you hundreds of pounds a year."

Continue Reading