>Not science. Their stylistic goals are blatant in the work they produce, this article in particular. That's a pretty loose and fundamentally unsupported state

>Not science. Their stylistic goals are blatant in the work they produce, this article in particular. That's a pretty loose and fundamentally unsupported statement. >the absence of any reference to the metric system in an allegedly scientific article is notable. The metric system isn't magic. It's normal to use the system most familiar to the audience being addressed. It is definitely weird that you're so hung up on this. My assumption, based on your strange snark regarding TNY, is that you just dislike the magazine for some reason you probably haven't really examined. Fortunately, no one at the New Yorker is listening to you. Put simply, there is no better source of carefully researched and well written long-form nonfiction in the US. They cover history, politics, entertainment, culture, and (yes!) science, and they do it at an award-winning level. Their coverage of issues around medicine and health care has been and remains especially relevant and fascinating -- folks like Jerome Groopman and Atul Gawande (who is, by the way, a MacArthur fellow) produce tremendous pieces in this area, all of which are well worth your time unless you're just too invested in hating on the magazine because they said "foot" instead of "meter." > Every non-animated photo in this article is BW But every photo in the New Yorker is not in this article. >this article still pretends to be a print publication. That's pretty deliberate, and is also completely unrelated to your complaints about what subject matter is appropriate for the magazine.