←back to thread

473 points Bostonian | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.218s | source
Show context
bashmelek ◴[] No.42178778[source]
To be honest, even 18 years ago, long before this editor in chief, I found Scientific American rather ideological. Maybe it got more obvious over time, but I don’t see its recent tone categorically different.
replies(7): >>42178909 #>>42178941 #>>42179009 #>>42179088 #>>42181722 #>>42183055 #>>42183064 #
kbelder ◴[] No.42179088[source]
SciAm was transformative to my life, I think. My father brought home a stack of them, maybe a couple year's worth, for me when I was twelve or so. I read them over and over again during my teens, slowly puzzling understanding out of the articles that were initially so far beyond me. Learned more from that stack of magazines than some years of high school.

But that was in the 80s. For the last couple of decades, Scientific American just makes me sad. Crap I wouldn't bother reading.

replies(2): >>42179260 #>>42181316 #
1. dtgriscom ◴[] No.42179260[source]
In the early 70's I loved The Amateur Scientist, "conducted" by C. L. Stong. Great articles, with real technical details, giving you a real chance to build real equipment. To pick one article at random, from February 1972: "A Simple Laser Interferometer, an Inexpensive Infrared Viewer and Simulated Chromatograms". Very, very cool.

There's nothing like that out there now.