5 ms·

Thanks for posting this. As a side note, I really like the style of nautil.us and their idea of writing about a single topic from different perspectives. How is

by sapsan 10y ago

Thanks for posting this. As a side note, I really like the style of nautil.us and their idea of writing about a single topic from different perspectives. How is this journal not very popular? (Or is it?)

quakeguy 10y ago
Nautil.us seems to be very popular around HN at least, i do like their articles too, a lot. But surely it isn't written for the "masses" (excuse me..).
- hashhar 10y ago
  Quanta magazine is my personal favourite. They are like XKCD's Thing Explainer for complex things. Check out my favourite article to get a taste of it. https://www.wired.com/2015/09/tricky-encryption-stump-quantum-computers/ https://www.wired.com/2015/09/tricky-encryption-stump-quantu... Some others to get a good sample: [1]: https://www.wired.com/2016/09/using-math-repair-650-year-old-masterpiece/ https://www.wired.com/2016/09/using-math-repair-650-year-old... [2]: https://www.wired.com/2015/12/outsiders-crack-a-50-year-old-math-problem/ https://www.wired.com/2015/12/outsiders-crack-a-50-year-old-...
sanjeetsuhag 10y ago
I really like Nautilus too! However, sometimes, they have been known to include articles that aren't very accurate. It's more of a lie of omission, in the manner of Scientific American: trying to dumb down complicated ideas sometimes makes them untrue.
jurassic 10y ago
If you enjoy the work consider a subscription. Since the election I've really been thinking a lot about how important it is for those of us who are able to provide financial support for quality writing. I'm trying to shed the idea that content should be free by asking, "Is this worth paying for?" If it is, then pay. If it's not, move on to something that is.
- Swizec 10y ago
  As I've climbed out of the poor student phase of my life I've grown to appreciate the idea that content should be free as in freedom and not free as in $0. It's an important distinction until we reach a utopia where people don't need $$ to live and do their writing/research etc
lorenzhs 10y ago
They've been criticised for twisting physics to support the conclusions they want to draw from it, even if there is an alternative and much simpler interpretation of the results, see http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9053 http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9053 — quote: The group driving [Fake Physics] is small but determined, ideology-driven and well-funded by rich people with an ax to grind. The majority of the community is unwilling to take on the unpleasant and unrewarding task of challenging them. While Multiverse Fake Physics plays a large role in media coverage of fundamental physics, partially because of funding from the Templeton Foundation, there are very few actual papers on the subject and “research” in this area is a small fraction of what theorists are doing. Most physicists just hope that if they ignore this it will go away. The Templeton Foundation, a religious organisation which has been funding them, has received a lot of criticism from the scientific community for linking science and religion. I don't think we should dismiss Nautilus outright but I do feel like they get more traction on HN than they deserve.
- wallace_f 10y ago
  Without clinking-through each of the links given in the article you linked to, can you help me, as a layman, summarize the criticism of Nautilus with regard to multiverse physics? Is the criticism more that they are disproportionately covering it, or is it misrepresenting it? Related: From the blog you linked, "not even wrong" is a phrase used as an attack by experts on outsiders, but it does not need to be an attack. It can simply be: "that is outside the realm of mainstream scientific research." I think experts would do well not to be condescending, but rather more explanatory here.
  - lorenzhs 10y ago
    Well I think it's a mixture of both, "disproportionate coverage" is a fair description, insofar as it misrepresents the activities and opinions of the research community (most of which appears to consider it hokum). I'll have to defer to the experts for the details, however, as I'm merely relaying their concerns.
    - 10y ago
apathy 10y ago
Prefer Mosaic. You'll see.

by sapsan 10y ago

quakeguy 10y ago

Nautil.us seems to be very popular around HN at least, i do like their articles too, a lot. But surely it isn't written for the "masses" (excuse me..).

hashhar 10y ago
Quanta magazine is my personal favourite. They are like XKCD's Thing Explainer for complex things. Check out my favourite article to get a taste of it. https://www.wired.com/2015/09/tricky-encryption-stump-quantum-computers/ https://www.wired.com/2015/09/tricky-encryption-stump-quantu... Some others to get a good sample: [1]: https://www.wired.com/2016/09/using-math-repair-650-year-old-masterpiece/ https://www.wired.com/2016/09/using-math-repair-650-year-old... [2]: https://www.wired.com/2015/12/outsiders-crack-a-50-year-old-math-problem/ https://www.wired.com/2015/12/outsiders-crack-a-50-year-old-...

sanjeetsuhag 10y ago

I really like Nautilus too! However, sometimes, they have been known to include articles that aren't very accurate. It's more of a lie of omission, in the manner of Scientific American: trying to dumb down complicated ideas sometimes makes them untrue.

jurassic 10y ago

If you enjoy the work consider a subscription. Since the election I've really been thinking a lot about how important it is for those of us who are able to provide financial support for quality writing. I'm trying to shed the idea that content should be free by asking, "Is this worth paying for?" If it is, then pay. If it's not, move on to something that is.

Swizec 10y ago
As I've climbed out of the poor student phase of my life I've grown to appreciate the idea that content should be free as in freedom and not free as in $0. It's an important distinction until we reach a utopia where people don't need $$ to live and do their writing/research etc

lorenzhs 10y ago

They've been criticised for twisting physics to support the conclusions they want to draw from it, even if there is an alternative and much simpler interpretation of the results, see http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9053 http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9053 — quote: The group driving [Fake Physics] is small but determined, ideology-driven and well-funded by rich people with an ax to grind. The majority of the community is unwilling to take on the unpleasant and unrewarding task of challenging them. While Multiverse Fake Physics plays a large role in media coverage of fundamental physics, partially because of funding from the Templeton Foundation, there are very few actual papers on the subject and “research” in this area is a small fraction of what theorists are doing. Most physicists just hope that if they ignore this it will go away. The Templeton Foundation, a religious organisation which has been funding them, has received a lot of criticism from the scientific community for linking science and religion. I don't think we should dismiss Nautilus outright but I do feel like they get more traction on HN than they deserve.

wallace_f 10y ago
Without clinking-through each of the links given in the article you linked to, can you help me, as a layman, summarize the criticism of Nautilus with regard to multiverse physics? Is the criticism more that they are disproportionately covering it, or is it misrepresenting it? Related: From the blog you linked, "not even wrong" is a phrase used as an attack by experts on outsiders, but it does not need to be an attack. It can simply be: "that is outside the realm of mainstream scientific research." I think experts would do well not to be condescending, but rather more explanatory here.
- lorenzhs 10y ago
  Well I think it's a mixture of both, "disproportionate coverage" is a fair description, insofar as it misrepresents the activities and opinions of the research community (most of which appears to consider it hokum). I'll have to defer to the experts for the details, however, as I'm merely relaying their concerns.
  - 10y ago

apathy 10y ago

Prefer Mosaic. You'll see.