| ▲ | robot-wrangler 2 days ago |
| I'm always surprised more people don't know about Quanta. Seems like it's currently the best science journalism out there, and IMO a very strong candidate for the single best place on the internet that's not crowd-sourced. The mixture of original art and technical diagrams is outstanding. Podcast is pretty good too, but I do wish they'd expand it to have someone with a good voice reading all the articles. Besides not treating readers like idiots, they take themselves seriously, hire smart people, tell good stories but aren't afraid to stay technical, and simply skip all the clickbait garbage. Right now from the Scientific American front page: "Type 1 Diabetes science is having a moment". Or from Nature: "'Biotech Barbie' says ..". Granted I cherry-picked these offensive headlines pandering to facebook/twitter from many other options that might be legitimately interesting reads, but on Quanta there's also no paywalls, no cookie pop-ups, no thinly-veiled political rage-baiting either |
|
| ▲ | Workaccount2 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Quanta is amazing because it doesn't have to worry about money. It's a publication run by the Simons Foundation, funded with the proceeds of the wildly successful RenTec hedge fund. So they get pretty much full editorial control. For other publications they are beholden to people who haven't figured out ad-block, and your bar needs to be pretty low to capture that revenue. |
| |
| ▲ | jordanpg 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Remarkably, they don't even ask for money anywhere on the site. Now that is a rare thing on the modern internet, especially for high quality writing. |
|
|
| ▲ | hufdr 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Quanta’s greatest strength is that it doesn’t pretend to be clever. Many tech publications write as if they’re showing off, and you just end up feeling tired after reading them. |
| |
| ▲ | aleph_minus_one 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > Many tech publications write as if they’re showing off, and you just end up feeling tired after reading them. I like this honestly because this shows that I learned something intelligent. On the other hand, if I don't feel exhausted after reading, it is a strong sign that the article was below my intellectual capacity, i.e. I would have loved it if I could have learned more. | | |
| ▲ | gowld 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It's OK to keep going deeper into the material if you aren't tired yet. | |
| ▲ | mulmen 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Seems superficial. If a simple concept is presented in a complex way what did you actually learn? | | |
| ▲ | aleph_minus_one 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Often, if the concept is presented in a more complex way the reason is that the author wants to emphasize and explain how the concept relates in a non-trivial way to some other deep concept; thus you learn a lot more than when the author explains things in the most simple (and shallow) way. | | |
| ▲ | mejutoco 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | IMO the most common reason why something is presented in a more complex way is that it is badly explained. Of course, most common or not, each case is different. | | |
| ▲ | jaennaet 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Also speaks to a lack of understanding on the author's part; people who truly understand some subject are generally much more adept at explaining it in simpler terms – ie without adding complexity beyond the subject's essential complexity |
| |
| ▲ | mulmen 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don’t see how that is beneficial. If a simple concept relates to a complex one then explain the complexity, don’t add it. | | |
| ▲ | aleph_minus_one 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > If a simple concept relates to a complex one then explain the complexity, don’t add it. So write a text of at least 500 pages to explain the complexity. :-) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | getnormality 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's because of their Simons Foundation support, but not only because of that. I mean, I invite anyone to name another billionaire pet project of comparable quality. |
| |
| ▲ | robot-wrangler 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Good game and a hard question, especially if you make "comparable" more explicit. I'd add "noncommercial, open-access", and "modern" in the sense that it happened under the current norms with respect to legacy and the social contract. | |
| ▲ | BobaFloutist a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I like what MacKenzie Scott is doing in the space of "What it takes to actually spend down billions of dollars" | |
| ▲ | robotresearcher 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Carnegie Libraries, Nobel Prizes, Rhodes scholarships? | | | |
| ▲ | Iwan-Zotow 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Clay Mathematics Institute, with its 7 Millennium problems | |
| ▲ | gowld 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Mathematica? |
|
|
| ▲ | drob518 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I agree. I find their articles very enjoyable. And even though they stay technical, they don’t descend into becoming a technical journal. The content is still accessible to a non-expert like me. |
