I haven't seen Kvant, but it's worth adding that Scientific American up till maybe the mid-80s was also more real than standard pop science. Don't take its curr

I haven't seen Kvant, but it's worth adding that Scientific American up till maybe the mid-80s was also more real than standard pop science. Don't take its current incarnation as much like its past. (I guess the 70s were even better for it, but this is my fuzzy memory of a trove of back issues I went through in the 80s.) That said, from a skim I wouldn't call this particular article standard pop science: it explains an idea/result rather than spending most of its words on periphera, and the subject is not recent news. It does ask less of the reader than an old Sci Am article would, I think.