> love that there is a publication with a significantly higher reading level assumed than most pop science content Well I am not sure about that.As it happens

> love that there is a publication with a significantly higher reading level assumed than most pop science content Well I am not sure about that.As it happens with most pop-sci publications the quality has taken a nose-dive. For example: > A new thought experiment indicates that quantum mechanics doesn’t work without strange numbers that turn negative when squared. I am not saying is a "bad" magazine per se, all I am saying is virtuable indistiguinshable from your SciAm, New Scientist and Discover. Some good articles and plenty of fluff. The level you want is in other places like: -https://www.ams.org/notices https://www.ams.org/notices - https://physicstoday.scitation.org/journal/pto https://physicstoday.scitation.org/journal/pto (free access to the 73 year archive) - https://inference-review.com/issues https://inference-review.com/issues (Ignore the 2014 crackpot articles)