Re: Scientific American

rbowman wrote this post; take it under advisement:

On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 09:38:25 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>

rbowman wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
 

On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 03:17:38 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>

That was a cool magazine. Martin Gardner’s maths column was how most
people discovered Conway’s “Game Of Life”, back in the day.

>
The important word is 'was'. 'National Geographic' is another 'was'.

 
What changed? The magazines, or you?

>
The magazines. 'Scientific American' never endorsed a political candidate
until Biden in 2020 and Harris in 2024. That's not science. 'National
Geographic' was dumbed down over the years and now doesn't even exist as a
print magazine afaik. The editors and staff writers were fired and it's
now a freelance effort ultimately owned by Disney.

Hmmm. Haven't look at either for awhile.

Though endorsing candidates who aren't k00ks seems good to me.

Did you look at the old NatGeo magazine to see the topless natives? :-)

--
"Well, if you can't believe what you read in a comic book, what *can*
you believe?!"
-- Bullwinkle J. Moose [Jay Ward]