Which would be a reasonable argument but it's not the one that sokoloff made. They clearly have issues with the accusation that Lutnick is corrupt.
> Overlap? These interests are barely even tangent.
> I feel like NYT's standards used to be higher than that...
You can see there's nothing in their comment that highlights frustration with an ability (or lack of) to find the information they clicked to read about.
Did we read the same first half of the comment? It describes font size and weight of the headline and the font size and weight and how far down the first supporting fact is.
There is then further commentary on how relevant or not relevant the fact is. But the first half of the complaint is literally about the organization and formatting.
Do you understand how English works? The part I quoted is the thesis, the first half is the evidence provided for that. It’s not “further commentary,” it’s the entire thrust of the comment. I genuinely don’t see how you can think the two halves are unrelated.
> Overlap? These interests are barely even tangent.
> I feel like NYT's standards used to be higher than that...
You can see there's nothing in their comment that highlights frustration with an ability (or lack of) to find the information they clicked to read about.
There is then further commentary on how relevant or not relevant the fact is. But the first half of the complaint is literally about the organization and formatting.