Would knowledge fragmentation explain why general interest pubs (like SciAm) would have less appeal today, leading to their being "dumbed down"? Conversely, if

Would knowledge fragmentation explain why general interest pubs (like SciAm) would have less appeal today, leading to their being "dumbed down"? Conversely, if as I think you suggest, there had been a rise in the number of literate thoughtful in-depth pubs focused on narrow specialization, then I'd accept that today's minds are equally active as yesteryear's but have just turned their attention inward. But I see nothing like that. Even semi-technical pubs like those in the computing space have degenerated into product and project promos (as MIT Tech Review has done). Where are today's equivalents to Creative Computing or Dr Dobbs or WiReD circa 1998 or InfoWorld circa 1985? The closest I've seen might be the Maker/Arduino/Pi pubs, but their agenda isn't insight, it's small specific ideas of projects (like Popular Mechanics often was in the 60's). All deeper fare on science faded out about 20 years ago. I side with the OP's interpretation; their absence is striking and suggests something big has changed. Doesn't such a "shallowing" (a la Nicholas Carr) and narrowing of interests imply we've all become less generally curious? Aren't these signs that we're less inclined to explore novel possible worlds, or we're satisfied to do so in less depth, than a generation (or two) ago? Online forums are no substitute for serious recreational inquiry, even the (very) few that are as constructively and generally clued-in as HNN.