If the New Yorker had used the term uncritically then I would agree with you. But they didn't, they carefully laid out why the term isn't clearly defined and hence why it isn't in common use among professionals. That's exactly what I would hope any publication would do when a term has currency in the news but the reading public might not know why it's a flawed term.

There's nothing ignorant about using the term "hydrogen bomb." It's a perfectly acceptable and relatively common term used to describe what they're using it to describe.

The only thing that's ignorant here is commenters insisting that "hydrogen bomb" is somehow wrong.

I understand that, I merely intended to demonstrate that ignorant simplicity is not a preferred quality of the New Yorker among its readers.

Why is that a point worth making in reply to a comment that is merely defending simplicity, not ignorant simplicity?

To separate the criticisms regarding simplicity generally and the nomenclature specifically. I was downvoted for what I said and I need imaginary internet points to feel like my life has meaning.

From what I can tell, you were downvoted because you either didn't read and understand the article, or you didn't understand the context in which it was written.

1. N. Korea claims it has a "Hydrogen Bomb".

2. The U.S. and others respond skeptically.

3. The New Yorker points out that the U.S. has made this response before (earlier in the cold war) and that the term itself has some ambiguity because of the different types of weapons that could have a fusion based element. Readers learn more about cold war history and the differences in different types of atomic weapons.

4. You make a snide comment that doesn't seem to register the entire context of all this, and get downvoted.