5 ms·

Indeed. The title should probably be "better measurements prove Einstein is still right", but that's not link-bait.

• deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
• mturmon 16y ago
  In fact, a lot of New Scientist online articles have this problem. I've stopped clicking.
• hga 16y ago
  Also note how the Ars article (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1373580 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1373580) actually tells you a lot of useful stuff about the paper vs. this one that's in a magazine that's nominally for Real Scientists(TM).
  • jacquesm 16y ago
    Scientific American hasn't been for "real scientists" since the mid 60's. They found that 'popular science' had a much larger audience and dumbed down accordingly. The old articles are a lot more solid on content, no fancy graphics and would actually require a bit of background knowledge to be understood. The last few years it is more at the level of 'infotainment' though they do serve as a useful system to pick out interesting developments from a large number of fields. I think of it as an easy preview, if something is really interesting (and not over my head) then I'll try to locate the original paper. The problem with that is that most of the times those are ridiculously expensive if you are not affiliated with a university.
    • hga 16y ago
      I stopped reading Unscientific Americans in the '80s, when e.g. they published a series of anti-BMD articles where the list of "beyond the foreseeable state of the art" required developments kept dropping as they were accomplished (in one notable example, you and I could have built an "impossible" battery system out of car batteries in a few hours...). However, this was published in New Scientist, although after some investigation I note that it isn't officially a magazine for practitioners, contrary to the impression I've gotten from individual on-line articles I've looked at.