I would subscribe to one. Journal articles are often opaque to people who aren't already in the field, and popular science falls too often into the storytelling trap seen here.
You could trim this down, but I personally find the background as interesting as the result.
Expensive.
… [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37171553
(This comment reads faster with tail recursion.)
I think it may not work out.
Any source that filtered their articles so only that quality was released, I would pay $5.
And instead of filtering out their writers work, it would mostly be about telling them to rework, do more homework, get it right.
90% of quality is simply recognizing when you haven’t hit the bar yet and stepping up. Repeatedly if necessary.
The subject is rarely the problem.
Downvote me as much as you like. It's painful to take an honest look into the mirror.
For a topic like in the article, you need a lot of words to give a very vague understanding if you are aiming for a general audience. Not clear it is worth it for the reader. For that more targeted audience it could be a lot shorter and give a little more detail.
Probably too small a market, but I would definitely enjoy that type of content a lot.
To be fair, manuals are often pretty opaque without the requisite background knowledge.
ne supra crepidam