3 ms·

I guess, but that's a bit of a firehose. Is there really nothing intermediate between the NYT and just scouring all the journals? Something like the AMS notices

I guess, but that's a bit of a firehose. Is there really nothing intermediate between the NYT and just scouring all the journals? Something like the AMS notices or Terry Tao's blog, but slightly more frequently updated?

mlevental 9y ago
look dude/person/woman i don't know what you're asking for. the reason i'm being so curt is because you seem to demonstrate exactly the worst kind of pretension that then reveals itself as a conceit ("plebs' coverage of math is too fluffy... but i'm not really interested enough to read journals"). working math isn't sensational but for once in a millenium (because it's abstruse and highly specialized). that's why journals like quanta and new yorker cover it in the way they do (because the details are boring by design) and god bless them for covering it at all. anyway the only other blog i know about is baez's https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/ https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/ but it's still pretty specialized (algebra and cat theory mostly). i'm sure there are a lot of blogs (gowers has one too) that you could read but it's all specialized (tao's posts are more expository yes that's true). edit: just noticed your name. remember you from ##math and ##physics. i'm surprised you don't already know all this. maybe you do and i'm the presumptuous asshole but you still shouldn't have been so dismissive of this new yorker piece.
- retsibsi 9y ago
  I don't see why it has to be pretension or conceit. Personally I am often frustrated by mainstream maths/science coverage, but that's not because I think I'm special or I'm pretending to be smart: in fact I'm very ignorant, only moderately intelligent, and couldn't follow the journal articles even if I had the time and inclination. My preference is for layman's explanations that guide me through a topic and help me to achieve some level of genuine understanding, and it's perfectly sincere. I'm sure there are people like me but smarter or more knowledgeable, whose preferences are similar but pitched a bit higher.
nileshtrivedi 9y ago
Check out Quanta magazine

mlevental 9y ago

look dude/person/woman i don't know what you're asking for. the reason i'm being so curt is because you seem to demonstrate exactly the worst kind of pretension that then reveals itself as a conceit ("plebs' coverage of math is too fluffy... but i'm not really interested enough to read journals"). working math isn't sensational but for once in a millenium (because it's abstruse and highly specialized). that's why journals like quanta and new yorker cover it in the way they do (because the details are boring by design) and god bless them for covering it at all. anyway the only other blog i know about is baez's https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/ https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/ but it's still pretty specialized (algebra and cat theory mostly). i'm sure there are a lot of blogs (gowers has one too) that you could read but it's all specialized (tao's posts are more expository yes that's true). edit: just noticed your name. remember you from ##math and ##physics. i'm surprised you don't already know all this. maybe you do and i'm the presumptuous asshole but you still shouldn't have been so dismissive of this new yorker piece.

retsibsi 9y ago
I don't see why it has to be pretension or conceit. Personally I am often frustrated by mainstream maths/science coverage, but that's not because I think I'm special or I'm pretending to be smart: in fact I'm very ignorant, only moderately intelligent, and couldn't follow the journal articles even if I had the time and inclination. My preference is for layman's explanations that guide me through a topic and help me to achieve some level of genuine understanding, and it's perfectly sincere. I'm sure there are people like me but smarter or more knowledgeable, whose preferences are similar but pitched a bit higher.

nileshtrivedi 9y ago

Check out Quanta magazine