Re: Scientific American

On 2024-10-10, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:

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.

Scientific magazines have no business being political magazines. It's
immediately going to alienate half of their potential subscribers. Even a
modern "scientist" should be able to figure that out. But most modern
"scientists" are progagandists, pushing Big Pharma crap or moron Woke cult
culture — usually both.

Men can "have babies," don't you know?

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

--
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.”  —J.R.R. Tolkien