3 ms·
No, it really is that bad. I've been reading Scientific American for decades, I no longer do, it's gotten that bad. I can even pinpoint when they passed the ro
by ars 5y ago
No, it really is that bad. I've been reading Scientific American for decades, I no longer do, it's gotten that bad.
I can even pinpoint when they passed the road of no return - it's when they mixed politics with science here: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/we-are-living-in-a-climate-emergency-and-were-going-to-say-so/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/we-are-living-in-... and https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientific-american-endorses-joe-biden1/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientific-americ... here.
That was when I realized they didn't care about actual science, they cared about appearance.
The old scientific american would have never written an article intended to make people act a certain way by changing the name of things.
- stjohnswarts 5y agoYou can't really argue about backing anyone other than Trump, his presidency was a cess pool and almost ended the US as the oldest democracy in the world. They were just calling out fascism for what it is. There will always be a place for that in any magazine.
- ars 5y agoThat just makes it even worse - why do they even bother backing his opponent in that case? Why do they feel a need to do this? I [used to] read it for science, not politics.