[bigtimeidiot]

>The fact that the NYT is somewhat affiliated with them

So a disclosure that they use a massively popular product is now an advertisement?

Just one time I'd like to open the comments and not have someone saying "fake news" or "this is just an ad" or "stick with the facts".

Vanguard is an interesting company doing big things. They invented the index fund. They are massive. The New York Times profiles companies like this often.

Personally I find this more interesting than a Musk tweet announcing an announcement six months in advance.

[cJ0th]

> So a disclosure is now an advertisement?

No it isn't. I merely said that the article reads like an advert (not: it is an advert) and furthermore I said the affiliation would not help to shake this impression off. This is merely an aside and still doesn't imply it is an ad. My main problem with this article is that it is not critically examining what it is reporting about. Whether or not it actually is an ad is secondary.

[brianwawok]

It's not meant to be a critical piece. Those exist too. Why can't an article give a short but interesting summary of how the market is changing?