Anyhow, the article referred to "3-D printing" to make copies of the marbles, but the writing was confused and to me it looked like automated carving, so I wanted to post it to see what others here thought. As it happens, having just checked the article again, the original copy has been amended to read "3-D machining" rather than "3-D printing" - but there's no correction notice to say that the article was changed. Mind you, the clue is still in the url: ... science/elgin-marbles-3d-print.html
Without HN, then, I read my stock sites as usual, but felt deeply that I missed the sanity-checks/informed input from HN commenters. It was lonely, in a way, and also made me fret about my missing issues with articles that usually others at HN would point out; different perspectives, questions about credibility or robustness of stats/data/methods of obtaining info on which articles might rely.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/08/science/elgin-marbles-3d-...