[TuringNYC]

This is a New Yorker article, so it has a literary bent in terms of details and descriptions typical of long-form publication. That is what New Yorker subscribers want. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-form_journalism

For straight-to-the-science, Wikipedia or other publications are better.

There is a publication for most major preferences. I used to love the detail of The New Yorker when i was single and had lots of time (former paper subscriber here, and current consumer via Audm.)

[username223]

If I have time to read about some unusual subject purely for enjoyment, it's hard to beat the New Yorker. I still remember a truly wonderful pair of articles years ago about a road-trip across Russia (written by Ian Frazier?). They allowed me to experience a place I'll never visit, and I enjoyed the trip.

If I just want information, I'll go to Wikipedia, Stack Overflow, etc., search for some keywords, skim it, and close the tab. Writing can be used for many purposes.

[StevePerkins]

I don't believe parent comment is saying that the description is too literary, or not scientific enough.

I think he's saying that the article takes unnecessary pains to signal, "These people weren't 'on our side' culturally". Unsophisticated, un-woke, "problematic", etc. Parent is correct that his has become a checklist trope over the past few years.

[godelmachine]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_the_Moon