Just like how I don't try to run the latest edition of Flight Simulator on my 4-GB, GPU-less device; I also don't try to visit websites built with latest web features using browsers that are clearly not trying to support those features.

NYT doesn't have to hinder its innovative efforts to create informative content just because of a couple of folks who refuse to admit that tech evolves over time.

I understand that ads can be annoying, and for that I use ad blockers where necessary; but for everything else, I appreciate the advancements in the web tech capabilities that enable the creation of amazing stuff.

> I also don't try to visit websites built with latest web features using browsers that are clearly not trying to support those features.

But good websites will let you, that's the point.

I find the nyt's website far more informative and way easier to use and navigate than this.

So why is neuter a good website while nyt's isn't?

Well, tbf, I'm speculating based on the evidence provided. But, if NYT provides a poor—or non-existent—experience to anyone, for example, without JavaScript enabled, then it fits my definition of "bad".

There is still plenty of design space between no JS and Carter licking his lips on the front page.