[forgot-pw]

I wish more science reporting was written this way. Take the big topic apart into a finite number of blocks and work through them: introduce concept, explain concept, impact concept, tie to next paragraph. In the end I was able to follow through multiple topics I knew noting about and get a high level understanding.

What I find from media science reporters is often missing background or context (or just flat out wrong) with oodles of impact (supposedly). From scientific journal articles I often lack the required background to even follow the abstract and almost certainly not the jargon filled paper (whether they are written that way on purpose I have my own opinions about).

I know you can't spend time explaining every building block concept, but the selection of what gets background and the succicintess of the explanations here is really nice for me.

[sizzle]

I wholeheartedly agree, you a articulated what I felt when reading this overview which is why I submitted it. Much respect to the writer and their organization for having high writing standards and making it accessible to curious outsiders.