"Science Journalism" -- a rant.

It's sentences like this, 'This includes innards like logic circuitry, which enable your computer to make complex non-binary decisions like “or,” “and,” or “if only” instead of simply “yes” or “no”.' in this superficially interesting article  that just immediately cause me to hate the article, be deeply disappointed by the author, and just want humanity to finish dying already.

I hate the article because it contains the construct.  "or" and "and" are boolean operators... yes, they are expressly, definitionally binary.  "if only" ... I don't know what to do with this.  Is there a circuit that makes a computer engage in wistful speculation?  This is one of those things that brings the whole house of cards down for me.  How can I trust anything in this article, which required actual effort to research, when it gets something so basic, clearly defined, and easily verifiable, wrong?  

I am deeply disappointed by the author because a) She took an interesting historical topic relating to technology and sacrificed it in the volcanic caldera of the Lowest Common Denominator; b) In pandering to a non-technical audience, she got the technical bits wrong, and in so doing, planted the seeds of misconception in the minds of her "don't know better" audience members; and c) she is an award-winning "science journalist" and should know better -- according to her Bio page on Inverse , 'Sarah earned her M.S. in science journalism from Boston University in 2018 and was awarded SciShortForm's "Top Pick" blog and honorable mention in 2019. She is also a member of the National Association of Science Writers.'  MASTERS OF SCIENCE IN SCIENCE JOURNALISM from BOSTON UNIVERSITY.  Just hold that turd in your mouth for a couple minutes... let the flavors develop.  Remember, kids:  You never get a second chance to make a first impression.

I just want humanity to finish dying already because we're over 40 years into the "personal computer revolution" (to say nothing of the 70-ish years since general purpose programmable computers became a practical "thing") and "popular press" audiences still need fundamental logic explained to them in a manner akin to "when a mommy and a daddy love each other very much, they do a special hug that makes a baby", and the popular press delivers it like, "all hugs make babies special mommies and daddies."  How is this a thing?  We've had 2 generations to inculcate children with a basic understanding of what the difference between "and" and "or" is.  Nope.  Let's buy new football uniforms, instead.  

I understand the "cool" thing in journalism is being dispassionate... well you need to be passionate about one thing:  not saying wrong things.  ...and the audience cares enough, maybe, to read the article, but not enough to stop at a bit that makes no sense, or seems to contradict itself, and check elsewhere.  That's probably the only exposure a lay audience member is going to get to some inkling of what a logic gate is, and now that lay audience member "understands" it wrong, instead of not knowing.  Do you want Trump for President?  Because this is how you get Trump for President.