Newt Gingrich is an important man, a man of refined tastes, accustomed to a certain lifestyle, and so when he visits the zoo, he does not merely stand with all the other patrons to look at the tortoises—he goes inside the tank.

On this particular afternoon in late March, the former speaker of the House can be found shuffling giddily around a damp, 90‑degree enclosure at the Philadelphia Zoo—a rumpled suit draped over his elephantine frame, plastic booties wrapped around his feet—as he tickles and strokes and paws at the giant shelled reptiles, declaring them “very cool.”

To hear more feature stories, see our full list or get the Audm iPhone app.

It’s a weird scene, and after a few minutes, onlookers begin to gather on the other side of the glass—craning their necks and snapping pictures with their phones and asking each other, Is that who I think it is? The attention would be enough to make a lesser man—say, a sweaty magazine writer who followed his subject into the tortoise tank for reasons that are now escaping him—grow self-conscious. But Gingrich, for whom all of this rather closely approximates a natural habitat, barely seems to notice.

These days, walking through parts of Manhattan feels like occupying two worlds at the same time. In a theoretical universe, you are standing in the nation’s capital of business, commerce, and culture. In the physical universe, the stores are closed, the lights are off, and the windows are plastered with for-lease signs. Long stretches of famous thoroughfares—like Bleecker Street in the West Village and Fifth Avenue in the East 40s—are filled with vacant storefronts. Their dark windows serve as daytime mirrors for rich pedestrians. It’s like the actualization of a Yogi Berra joke: Nobody shops there anymore—it’s too desirable.

A rich ghost town sounds like a capitalist paradox. So what the heck is going on? Behind the darkened windows, there’s a deeper story about money and land, with implications for the future of cities and the rest of the United States.

When Brandon Farbstein first joined Instagram in 2014, he was 14 and optimistic. Farbstein was born with a rare form of dwarfism, and he wanted to use the photo-sharing site to educate people about his condition—to, as he told me, “show people a glimpse into my life and inspire people.”

Soon enough, though, the hateful messages started coming: death threats, expletive-laden comments about his appearance, worse. A meme page put his face on Hitler’s body. Multiple accounts popped up with the explicit purpose of taunting him. His house was swatted. When he does a live video, the insults float onscreen, fast and furious. “It’s been hard to keep my composure,” Farbstein told me. After trolls started posting pictures of him in the hallways at his high school, he started to fear for his safety. Eventually, he left and finished high school online.

On social media, the country seems to divide into two neat camps: Call them the woke and the resentful. Team Resentment is manned—pun very much intended—by people who are predominantly old and almost exclusively white. Team Woke is young, likely to be female, and predominantly black, brown, or Asian (though white “allies” do their dutiful part). These teams are roughly equal in number, and they disagree most vehemently, as well as most routinely, about the catchall known as political correctness.

Reality is nothing like this. As scholars Stephen Hawkins, Daniel Yudkin, Miriam Juan-Torres, and Tim Dixon argue in a report published Wednesday, “Hidden Tribes: A Study of America’s Polarized Landscape,” most Americans don’t fit into either of these camps. They also share more common ground than the daily fights on social media might suggest—including a general aversion to PC culture.

Has there ever been such an elaborate rollout for the results of a DNA test?

On Monday morning, Elizabeth Warren—Massachusetts senator, likely presidential candidate—unveiled a web page with five videos featuring interviews of family, friends, students, former colleagues, and the Stanford geneticist Carlos Bustamante. Republicans have for years accused Warren, a Democrat, of faking American Indian ancestry to advance her career. (There is no evidence she professionally benefited from it.) On the matter of her DNA, Bustamante tells her in the video, “the facts suggest that you absolutely have a Native American ancestor in your pedigree.”

Read: Is Elizabeth Warren Native American or what?

So here we are: A national politician has taken a DNA test to prove her heritage. To which President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly mocked Warren as “Pocahontas,” responded on Monday, “Who cares?”

We don’t choose our siblings the way we choose our partners and friends. Of course, we don’t choose our parents either, but they usually make that up to us by sustaining us on the way to adulthood. Brothers and sisters are just sort of there. And yet, when it comes to our development, they can be more influential than parents. This holds whether they are older and cool, or younger and frustrating; whether we follow in their footsteps, or run screaming in the other direction.

Part of siblings’ sway has to do with their sheer presence. Eighty-two percent of kids live with a sibling [1] (a greater share than live with a father), and about 75 percent of 70-year-olds have a living sibling. [2] For those of us who have brothers or sisters, our relationships with them will likely be the longest of our life.

Samantha remembers her high-school days more as a trial version of college. She seems part amused, part ashamed as she recalls the hours she dedicated to reworking her résumé—or the hours on top of that spent plowing through SAT exercises in the home of her one-on-one college-application coach, even though she had already achieved near-perfect scores on practice tests. On any given weeknight in high school, she says, she was likely up until 3 or 4 a.m., studying in her twin bed, then waking up at 7 to go to school. College prep consumed her already-limited free time, even cutting into hours she needed to work on homework ranging from AP-physics problem sets to her senior thesis.

Samantha, 20, who asked to be identified by her first name only so she could speak freely about a sensitive topic, is now a sophomore at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, some 500 miles east of her suburban Cincinnati home. A Korean American who graduated from a predominantly white, affluent private high school, she’s double majoring in international relations and East Asian studies. The century-old Baltimore campus is gradually becoming home. But the way she got there still makes her uncomfortable. “I got a very high SAT score,” Samantha says, “literally because my parents hired somebody.”

Neanderthals suffered many gruesome injuries in their day. The precious remains of our ancient-human relatives reveal crushed limbs, fractured skulls, and broken ribs—relics from hunting accidents and warfare. That’s not to mention severe tooth abscesses and broken teeth that would have contributed to severe chronic pain.

Behind these gory details, however, lies the fact that many of these individuals appear to have survived for months or even years after their injuries. They lived to fight another day. This is at odds with some common assumptions about Neanderthals: Compared to modern humans, they are often thought to have lacked the necessary compassion or cognitive abilities to look after the sick. “We can infer from the fact that they survived that they must have been helped by others—and in some cases that help must have been knowledgeable and quite well planned,” says Penny Spikins, an archaeologist at the University of York in the United Kingdom. Their survival would have only been possible, in other words, if they had sophisticated health care.

BOSTON — In the days leading up to the trial accusing Harvard of discriminating against Asian American applicants, supporters of the university worried that the group behind the litigation, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), would turn the case into a broader attack on affirmative action and race-based admissions policies. It’s one thing to say the use of race in admissions is negatively affecting a minority group to the benefit of white students, but a completely different thing to say that the advantage is going to other minority groups.

On Monday, the first day of the three-week-long trial, their fears were realized as the plaintiffs presented their opening arguments in a nondescript Boston courtroom. “The future of affirmative action is not on trial,” Adam Mortara, the lead attorney for the plaintiff, said. After all, the Supreme Court has been clear that colleges can consider race in admissions as way to create a diverse class. But Harvard had gone beyond that,  he told Judge Allison Burroughs.

Here’s the premise: A white, by then 78-year-old New Yorker, who built his fortune on Wall Street and is one of its most vocal defenders, and who’s had issues with African Americans and women, is the answer to what’s going on in the Democratic Party right now.

Oh, and he’s a former Republican. And he’s a terrible campaigner whose signature move is awkwardly asking kids to give him high fives. And he says he’s not sure how true all the accusations against Charlie Rose are. But … he does have close to $50 billion. And he did spend Saturday night in New Hampshire.

So Mike Bloomberg can maybe run for president as a Democrat?

Or, as so many politicos and reporters have been reacting to the talk: Are we really doing this again?