I read Quanta (via RSS) and often can only make it 1/2 to 2/3 the way through an article before giving up. Today I figured out why: the punchline is absolutely

I read Quanta (via RSS) and often can only make it 1/2 to 2/3 the way through an article before giving up. Today I figured out why: the punchline is absolutely buried. > Another property of ultra-stable glass would eventually reveal the most promising road map to ideal glass. > { + 4 intermediate paragraphs } > [the property] ...Sure enough, they found that both glasses had far lower heat capacity than usual near absolute zero, in line with a crystal’s. This suggested that ultra-stable glass has fewer two-level systems to tunnel between. > { + 3 intermediate paragraphs } > [the solution] ...His algorithm picks two particles at random and swaps their positions. These shake-ups help the simulated liquid stay unstuck, allowing molecules to settle into snugger fits — just as the ability to swap two ill-fitting shapes would help in Tetris. Alternatively, that could've been written as: > Another property of ultra-stable glass - it's far lower heat capacity - would eventually reveal the most promising road map to ideal glass: randomly swapping particles of cooling glass to allow for snugger fits. -- And that's it! -- But my brain either can't, or refuses to, follow 8 paragraphs to arrive at the Aha moment. Now, I don't read these sorts of articles for the pleasure of reading. And, I think the writing style suggests this is a primary goal. So why do I read it? I dunno, maybe it's a better version of me that clicks "subscribe" than the one who's presented with the article to read? Or, I prefer to read selectively rather than comprehensively. A trait I think is of merit, but my SAT and ACTs surely didn't.