Wednesday roundup

Postpartum depression is neither uniquely postpartum, nor uniquely depression.

Julia Ioffe in Donetsk.

I'm aware that the expression is overused, but it hits the spot: I just can't. Same goes with Princeton Mom.

Another way the financial system fails the poor (and those breaking out of poverty).

 

This article should be less about millennials being priced out of DC and more about people doing important, underpaid work--e.g., serving the homeless--being priced out of DC.

 

Disruptive technology isn't always what it seems, and grit is overrated.

GMOs haven't been all blessings for Hawaii.

 

Pregnant women: please don't start overconsuming fish. Even Marion Nestle neglects to offer up the flax-seed option.

 

This piece on poison ivy would have been more helpful with some pictures of poison ivy.

These relationship principles may seem obvious or second-nature to some, but they're worth sharing nonetheless. The overarching principle: operate as if you're on the same team. Once you're not, there's no point. On that note, within reason, start with the benefit of the doubt and engage rather than withdraw.

Shonda Rhimes' commencement address at Dartmouth is brilliant. If I have time later, I'll excerpt from it, but really just read the whole thing.

More about magnets.

 

Which brings us to science, or how some scientists need to (1) chill the f* out and (2) get their facts straight (yes, you, too are prone to butchering reality). For example, this piece on particle accelerators is soooo oversimplified in so many ways, which is unnecessary because they needn't exaggerate to make their case that accelerators are important. The case is there. Conversely, here's a smart, nuanced article about how technological advances can enhance (but not ensure) nuclear safety. Also, to the sanctiscientists: it's not fair to appropriate or claim a monopoly on language. Non-scientists have as much claim to those terms as you do. It would be different, and more valid, to say that when non-scientists (or even non-specialists in the science in question) need to understand that the way they're using the word colloquially isn't true to how it's used in the science it came from. Which is really more about misusing the science and not about misusing the word. Finally: get over yourselves, because stories do matter. They always have and they always will. You can't and shouldn't reduce the world to data.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, go make some mathematical salad dressing.