6/26/2026 at 7:19:51 AM
by throwaway81523
6/26/2026 at 9:23:25 AM
Scientific American hasn't been the magazine it was for decades -- there's nobody writing columns like what Martin Gardner or A.K. Dewdney used to write that made the general public interested in some mathematical or computational problem. These days it is basically a clone of Discover, and being purchased by its publisher makes sense.by jhbadger
6/26/2026 at 8:54:37 AM
I used to buy Scientific American, but I suspect like so many other print publications it has failed to adapt to the internet.The other problem is that science is so politicised in recent years. It has to fit within certain parameters or else.
by nephihaha
6/26/2026 at 4:37:31 PM
Scientific American in the 80s was almost holy to me as a kid. It felt like a privilege to read the pages, stretching my mind to understand concepts, procedures, and vocabulary. It really affected my life.It was so disappointing when it went to crap. I'm not sure it was the internet; it happened twenty or more years ago. I know they've had problems with editors... it's been sensationalist trash for quite a while.
by kbelder
6/26/2026 at 5:41:27 PM
Same here. I read it a lot in the eighties and nineties along with some other similar magazines.Unfortunately it is far from the only magazine destroyed by the web. I feel it is so hard to find decent content which isn't either behind a paywall, sensationalist clickbait or peddling some kind of agenda.
by nephihaha