[lich_king]

I have an opinion about the editorial style of Quanta that I don't think it's popular here (judging by how often they get upvoted), but I think it's a symptom of that.

They cover science, but the template they consistently follow is a vague title that oversells the premise and then an article filled with human-interest details and appeals to implications. This makes it easy for everyone to follow along and have an opinion, but I feel like science is a distant backdrop and never the actual subject.

In this article, what's the one tidbit of scientific knowledge that we gain? Dedekind's and Cantor's work is described only in poetic abstractions ("a wedge he could use to pry open the forbidden gates of infinity"). When the focus is writing a gossip column for eloquent people, precision doesn't matter all that much.

[johngossman]

I find they are good at identifying interesting topics and writing articles that don't deliver. They remind me of Omni magazine (which I subscribed to at one point). The articles aren't even wrong.

[MichaelDickens]

In my experience virtually every magazine is like this, not just Quanta. I open an article hoping to learn something about some scientific or mathematical discovery, but instead the article is almost entirely about the discoverer.

For learning about actual discoveries, YouTube is much better (Veritasium, Numberphile, 3Blue1Brown, ...).

[ajkjk]

I think your opinion is popular here. Quanta is, while better than nothing, universally disappointing. It seems like it would be much easier for them to do a better job -- write less vaguely, fact-check more, assume the reader is a bit more intelligent.

[rvba]

The articles are unreadable fluff