I think this is an unfair criticism of the Quanta articles. I'll just say up front that I am not an academic, and I enjoy the breadth of coverage in the Quanta

I think this is an unfair criticism of the Quanta articles. I'll just say up front that I am not an academic, and I enjoy the breadth of coverage in the Quanta articles. I would liken them to science articles in American Scientist. (Perhaps you don't like that either.) Yes, they are popularized, but they are still technical. Are you bored by a description of an algorithm you know well? This article clearly describes the process of Huffmann encoding. It's not one of the most amazing discoveries, but is this topic ever going to be exciting? I'd say it's easier to follow their article than either Wikipedia or the top animation hit [1]. There are two other claims you make that appear baseless. On the first point: > Quanta magazine articles are written by journalists The first bio I checked [2] is a Ph.D. mathematician. If they also write, that does not make them less qualified. I'll grant that the second bio I checked [4] was "only" a journalist, but the third was a professor in a named chair [5]. Just clicking, not searching for examples. On the second point: > oversimplifies the problem and gives no idea about the actual solution In your reference [3], it describes the problem clearly and devotes several paragraphs to what looks like a sketch of a solution. Certainly it outlines the ingredients used. (Search for "To see how they arrived at their new upper limit." and "In their proof [...]".) [1]: https://cmps-people.ok.ubc.ca/ylucet/DS/Huffman.html https://cmps-people.ok.ubc.ca/ylucet/DS/Huffman.html [2]: https://www.quantamagazine.org/authors/erica-klarreich/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/authors/erica-klarreich/ [4]: https://www.quantamagazine.org/authors/kevin-hartnett/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/authors/kevin-hartnett/ [5]: https://www.quantamagazine.org/authors/stevenstrogatz/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/authors/stevenstrogatz/