15 Matching Annotations
  1. Feb 2022
    1. La ventaja que tenían es que, en papel, no tenían mucha competencia en España (tal vez incluso es español, no lo sé). Si nos vemos empujados al medio digital exclusivamente, entonces sí que encontramos alternativas. Quanta Magazine, de donde obtienen algunos artículos y llegan a IyC con meses de retraso (https://www.quantamagazine.org/) ya es una alternativa. Y tienen una web que es un calco de investigación y ciencia. Está en inglés pero hay todo tipo de traductores y plugins para traducir las webs.
      • QUANTA
    2. Anna Ferran, Editora de Investigación y CienciaErnesto Lozano, Editor de Investigación y CienciaLaia Torres, Directora editorialPara cuestiones relacionadas con el cambio de modelo (suscripciones,adquisición de números sueltos, etc.): www.investigacionyciencia.es/faq
      • editores
      • FAQ
    3. a partir de enero de 2022 Investigación y Ciencia se publicará exclusivamente como revista digital
      • 2022: digital only
      • IyC
      • 2022: solo digital
  2. Jan 2022
    1. xyzzy21 12 days ago | prev | next [–] Scientific American started its decline in the 1990s. It became a "rag" in the 2000s. It's 100% worthless now. reply
      • OK
    2. duskwuff 13 days ago | parent | prev | next [–] The decline of Scientific American into pop science started much earlier than that. I'd peg it around 2000, when they changed the cover design and stopped running classic columns like "Mathematical Games" and "Amateur Scientist". The pop-science articles started ramping up around the same time. reply green01 12 days ago | root | parent | next [–] Same thing with Popular Science and Popular Mechanics, science reporting was the first to go in the death of journalism. They were terrible 15 years ago, maybe people didn't notice until recently when they started bizarrely endorsing politicians like Biden and running CRT articles.
      • OK
    3. cycomanic 13 days ago | prev | next [–] I always found the New Scientist a much better publication
      • I DONT THINK SO!
      • very low level!
    4. systemvoltage 13 days ago | prev | next [–] I've completely lost faith in Scientific American after they tried to "cancel" James Webb (yes, JWST telescope name) for complicitness against LGBTQ people some 70 fricking years ago, more details here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29690749
      • !!!
    1. Rama Says: Comment #111 January 5th, 2022 at 7:44 am Scientific American is no longer what it used to some decades back. The standard of articles has come down and has very low abysmal standards of written presentations. American Scientist (AS) has good content and would go for AS and ignore Scientific American.
      • OK!
    2. GregW Says: Comment #8 January 3rd, 2022 at 5:53 am Scientific American was really great in the 80s but somewhere in the 90s or early 2000s it took a turn towards dumbed down science popularism and lost my respect
      • ME TOO!
    3. the SciAm hit-piece, and then reported back to the others that the strong emotions were completely, 100% justified in this case.
      • yes! 100% justified!
    4. Fortunately, there are high-quality online venues (e.g., Quanta) that partly fill the role that Scientific American abdicated.
      • thank you!
      • I'll change to Quanta
    5. Laura Helmuth, the editor-in-chief now running SciAm into the ground
      • since this change, everything for the worse
    6. Scientific American—or more precisely, the zombie clickbait rag that now flaunts that name
      • HERE! very true!!!
      • catchy headlines that don't describe the news
  3. Oct 2021
    1. It is not only the essence of being human but also a vital property of life. Technological advances in communication shape society and lnake its members more interdependent