Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

New Scientist did something like this when it started to emphasise the mobile version: more pop psych, less hard science. Then I stopped reading it.

It's interesting to find archive copies of New Scientist and Sci Am from the 70s and 80s to see just how far the tone and content have drifted.

Maybe I'm unduly pessimistic, but I'm finding it hard to imagine something like Martin Gardner's math and puzzle columns appearing regularly in a mainstream online journal today.



Science News (https://www.sciencenews.org/) is still around and kicking. It's the last magazine I still subscribe to.


If your website doesn't have large pictures of people having a good time, you're behind the times, and you won't have a general readership.


New Scientist has been uncritical gee-whiz garbage since at least the 90s.

It might have been before that, but I lacked the analytical skills to notice.


Yes, even at school aged 14 I was told that if I wanted to really learn about science I should read Scientific American in preference to New Scientist.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: