|
|
|
|
|
|
by bvv
3367 days ago
|
|
|
It's most certainly not scientific writing. But I think that is not the point of these publications -- they are meant for a wide audience. So I think I should interpret your criticism as saying that quanta does a poor job in maintaining rigor while trying to explain advanced topics in mathematics and theoretical physics to a wide audience. My impression, on the other hand, is that their reporting on these topics beats similar publications hands down. I am therefore happy to recommend it to interested laypeople, for example to my (few...) friends outside of academia and to people here on HN. By the way, I hope you realize that these two viewpoints are not completely orthogonal. |
|
|
You win the Fields Medal. :)
I appreciate your feedback and you seemed to have interpreted my text words as intended. I disagree with your conclusion but you do understand my position. I'm grateful for that. So much can be misunderstood through the web. I point others to your comment to hopefully elaborate.
I do think Quanta does a poor job at maintaining the rigor and no they aren't as bad as other publications. But we should hold them to a higher standard (heck all publishers). They are closer to what I think is needed in the industry but it's too much hype for me and not enough rigor.