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.

> However, by October 1933, the issue was straightened out and she was aboard the Bremen, sailing for the United States.

Since she died on 14 April 1935, it was 18 months rather than 2 years.

That sounds like a rather pedantic correction on your part.

That pedanticism is a bad sign and puts your "correction" about the cancer in doubt too.

Is the wikipedia page more or less correct or in need of editing in your view? (Given that you are probably the current world expert on Noether having written the book)

I appreciate hearing about details like this and getting the source directly. I hope Kristina Armitage and Michael Kanyongolo from Quanta Magazine respond and you can update us!

Scott's Blog on Hit Piece: https://theshamblog.com/an-ai-agent-published-a-hit-piece-on... Ars Editor Note: https://arstechnica.com/staff/2026/02/editors-note-retractio... Ars Retraction: https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/02/after-a-routine-code-reje...