all 8 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 15 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (4 children)

If there was an Onion magazine for scientific articles, then this could be a headline in it: "The dinosaurs were once considered reptilian, but the new results suggest we may need to rethink their evolution".

The reporter presents the fact that dinosaurs were warm-blooded as a new discovery, but that's been known for several decades now, so we may not have to rethink their evolution afterall. It may have been new information to the people at Scientific American, but when writing about a subject that they know nothing about, I'd at least expect some basic research like reading the first sentence on the Wikipedia entry for dinosaurs.

Checking a few other articles from the Scientific American, they were equally poor or without substance. It's tabloid level journalism about science. They used to have a good reputation when I grew up, so it's sad to see how far it has fallen.

Edit: the New Scientist has a proper article about the same study:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2589534-t-rex-teeth-show-the-enormous-predatory-dinosaur-was-warm-blooded/

Internet archive link: https://web.archive.org/web/20260917184844/https://www.newscientist.com/article/2589534-t-rex-teeth-show-the-enormous-predatory-dinosaur-was-warm-blooded/

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

    National Geographic has gone the same route. I got it as a Christmas present every year for decades, starting in 4th grade. It was the finest publication on the planet for over a century.

    The Fox bought it, and every other cover story became about religion, or some war. It became obvious conservative propaganda, and was awful. I had already let my subscription lapse in the smart phone era, but I still kept up with it, until Fox destroyed it.

    Everything MAGA touches is ruined. What shame that it had to happen to the greatest magazine that ever existed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 14 hours ago (1 child)

    My parents were subscribed when I was growing up. Amazing articles, I was a huge fan.

    I would never think of subscribing today, all things considered.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 12 hours ago

    I loved the space stuff, they always had the best space pictures, but they also had great animal stuff, dinosaur stuff, geography stuff, archeology/ anthropology stuff, and more. Even stuff I didn't care about when I was young, like bugs, I came to enjoy as I got older. I used to read it cover to cover every month, it was very influential on me.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 22 hours ago

    Checking a few other articles from the Scientific American, they were equally poor or without substance. It's tabloid level journalism about science. They used to have a good reputation when I grew up, so it's sad to see how far it has fallen.

    I believe ownership of SA changed hands some time in the 2000s, and the new leadership was targeting pop-science. They shifted views, so their competition stopped being actual scientific outlets/journals, and instead they started competing with I Fucking Love Science and other Facebook pages. They realized they could make more money pumping out quick, easy-to-consume factoids on social media than they ever did by putting actual effort into their product, so they made the financially-obvious choice.

    Absolute shame.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 day ago

    T. Rex liked cuddles as much as humans, study finds

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 23 hours ago (1 child)

    I thought that they had already decided that the bipedal ones were giant chickens. Of course they would be warm blooded.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment