Fifth day. Still too hot. Tolerable at park but no breeze except my own motion. A pox on climate denialist politicians.
Speaking of poxes, I watched the network episode of “Big Bang Theory” last night. This was the episode where Scientific American writes a blurb about the theory postulated by the experimentalist and developed by the theoretician. I would say Mutt and Jeff except I can’t recall which is which. Anyway, short one thinks, tall one yammers.
The basis of the episode was that Scientific American only mentions the theoretician by name causing all sorts of inadequacy and emotion, which are always funny when dealing with nerds. In fact the whole episode was an EMO extravaganza.
As is usual BBT is NOT about physics but about geekery, but what struck me is what an indictment of Scientific American this episode was. SA prides itself on being the oldest (think Edison era) and premiere science outreach periodical in America, And they don’t have the journalistic standards and integrity to even get the names right?
Ayeh. big indictment. Skientifik Amerikan.
I have to admit to a love hate relationship with SA. Back in my college days it was a good rag and served me well in learning stuff outside my fields or in getting up on the look and feel of some new area in my fields. But then it got steadily worse and orthogonal and I spurned it. Recently – a couple of years ago – I gave it another try. It’s better but not up to my college experience. And it’s way not as good as Science News. Different undertaking. SN is a news rag, SA is a new science rag.
But that they have shitty journalism slashed on national television is not to their favor.