[Veen]

> I seriously doubt that many of it's readers have sufficiently deep knowledge of QC to properly understand the Sachdev–Ye–Kitaev model

But that's the problem. Most people don't understand the underlying science, so they rely on science journalism to distill and explicate complex topics without simplifying and distorting to the point they lose any relationship with the truth. In this case, the writer has failed in their task; they've written a load of nonsense that actively undermines a reader's ability to comprehend the topic—in short, it's bullshit.

[andyjohnson0]

I'm not disputing that the Quanta article is factually deficient - although I don't have the relevant specialist knowledge to understand why. I am disputing that this marks the "death" of the magazine.

[dekken_]

Purely speaking for myself, but I could tell it was metaphorical. Given the "magazine" is still operating, and that I read some of the article.

[nobodyandproud]

A plain reading of the first four or five paragraphs doesn’t tell me that this is a calculation.

[dekken_]

I meant that the magazine is not literally dead, but in the sense of "dead to me".

[oh_my_goodness]

Not death of magazine. Correct.

But is the distinction between calculation and experiment really specialist knowledge?