Hacker News Reader

Comment by rdl | Hacker News Reader

As sad as this is, what's sadder is that Wired still exists and is diametrically opposed to the values it had when created.

View on HN

I'm a print subscriber to Wired and read it cover to cover most months. I find most issues pretty good and usually learn all kinds of interesting details about things happening in the tech world. They even have a hacker column, in a recent issue the writer talked about his journey setting up and using a raspberry pi based radio telescope. What would you say Wired is missing now compared to its first iterations?

I mostly stopped reading it in ~2021/2022, but from ~2015-2021 it was getting progressively more hostile to tech, fearful of anything new, etc.

I skimmed the online list of articles for the past few months and it does look better (but not 1993-1997 high water mark, or 1997-2021 still ok). There have been two different editors in chief since 2021, maybe that was a factor.

That's interesting and I appreciate your response. I didn't subscribe until 2020 so perhaps I missed the downward swing and have only seen it on the up?

> I mostly stopped reading it in ~2021/2022, but from ~2015-2021 it was getting progressively more hostile to tech, fearful of anything new, etc.

It's would be hard for them to maintain the kind of techo-optimism they had in their early years, without sounding delusional, given what we've learned since.

When I think of wired I think of articles written by andrew hultkrans. I have a video of him I tried to get a discussion on, but even in 1993 he was already mentioning smart cards and tvs.

>What would you say Wired is missing now compared to its first iterations?

Wired's so-called "review" of Hogwarts Legacy is an abomination. <https://www.wired.com/review/hogwarts-legacy-review/>

PS - Check out the author's other works for the magazine.

Though there was plenty of good content in the years that followed, to me Wired reached its peak when it published Neal Stephenson's 'Hacker Tourist' article.

https://www.wired.com/1996/12/ffglass/

> is diametrically opposed to the values it had when created

And that's likely the reason it still exists. I don't think WIRED really survived the dot-com bubble popping.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com