3 comments

  • bookofjoe3 days ago
    <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;wallhop.io&#x2F;https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2026&#x2F;08&#x2F;15&#x2F;nyregion&#x2F;nyc-street-sign-shop.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;wallhop.io&#x2F;https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2026&#x2F;08&#x2F;15&#x2F;nyregi...</a>
  • timr57 minutes ago
    &gt; Even Mayor Zohran Mamdani showed up at the shop to help with the Knicks signs.<p>Well thank goodness <i>that</i> detail was included. I don&#x27;t think the sign shop that manages 1 million signs could have done the job without him.<p>But in all seriousness...is it too much to ask the NY Times to have a human interest article about the freaking <i>sign shop</i> without it incorporating partisan politics?<p>I realize that politicians are going to take photo ops, but <i>you don&#x27;t have to cover it</i>.
    • TehCorwiz48 minutes ago
      He&#x27;s the mayor regardless of your feelings on the matter, and the Nicks are the sportsball team for the city he&#x27;s mayor of. This isn&#x27;t partisan thing just because he exists and is doing what mayors do. If he tried to gatekeep something for only his party, or ideology then it&#x27;d be partisan. But he didn&#x27;t because it&#x27;s a NY thing, not a partisan thing. See the difference?
      • timr45 minutes ago
        &gt; He&#x27;s the mayor regardless of your feelings on the matter<p>...which didn&#x27;t come into my comment in the slightest? It&#x27;s stupid no matter who the mayor is.<p>Your response is indicative of exactly the problem [1]: you&#x27;re leaping to a partisan conclusion, because I dared to criticize something related to politics. I remember when New Yorkers <i>made fun</i> of crap like this.<p>[1] to be specific: the reflexive political toxicity that is melting everything into a morass of partisan goo.
        • xingped15 minutes ago
          Literally calls the article partisan, accuses someone else of bring partisanship into it. Are you insane or just a shitty LLM?
        • TehCorwiz43 minutes ago
          Are you an LLM, did you context get compacted?<p>You&#x27;re the one who accused it of being partisan.
          • timr40 minutes ago
            This is not hard. Including the content in the article is partisan, <i>no matter who the politician happens to be.</i><p>It would be the same if the paper did a drop-in about Trump.
            • margalabargala0 minutes ago
              Mentioning the presence of a city mayor in an article about that city is not inherently partisan.<p>If your political feelings about the mayor are so strong you cannot see their name without degenerating into accusations of partisanship, that&#x27;s a you problem.
    • smcg56 minutes ago
      how is that partisan politics? showing up as a mascot for a random human interest story is the primary function of a mayor.
      • timr55 minutes ago
        &gt; how is that partisan politics?<p>Nope. Premise is backwards. Why does the mayor <i>belong</i> in a story about the intricacies of printing road signs? Is the mayor a road sign enthusiast? Did he create the road-sign printing system? No? No relation at all, other than <i>seeing an opportunity to inject himself into a story?</i><p>Yeah, maybe don&#x27;t include it, then.<p>&gt; showing up as a mascot for a random human interest story is the primary function of a mayor.<p>That&#x27;s certainly what politicians <i>try</i> to do. You, as a journalist, are not required to take the bait. Sometimes it&#x27;s just cool to have a nice little story about the people at the sign factory.
        • cj50 minutes ago
          Here&#x27;s an article + video from a while ago on the same topic, without mention of a mayor:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;thekidshouldseethis.com&#x2F;post&#x2F;nyc-dot-sign-shop" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;thekidshouldseethis.com&#x2F;post&#x2F;nyc-dot-sign-shop</a><p>I wonder if anything has changed with how they make signs since 10 years ago. I can&#x27;t access the NYT article.
          • bookofjoe36 minutes ago
            <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;wallhop.io&#x2F;https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2026&#x2F;08&#x2F;15&#x2F;nyregion&#x2F;nyc-street-sign-shop.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;wallhop.io&#x2F;https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2026&#x2F;08&#x2F;15&#x2F;nyregi...</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;unwall.app&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2026&#x2F;08&#x2F;15&#x2F;nyregion&#x2F;nyc-street-sign-shop.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;unwall.app&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2026&#x2F;08&#x2F;15&#x2F;nyregion&#x2F;nyc-s...</a>
    • e4015 minutes ago
      You are projecting your political feelings. He’s a popular mayor who loves the team.
    • add-sub-mul-div53 minutes ago
      This is very standard and innocuous. This instance only stands to you because it makes you uncomfortable. Own up to the specific reason for that instead of acting like the existence of &quot;politics&quot; in a general sense is somehow evil.
      • timr51 minutes ago
        It is indeed, sadly, &quot;standard&quot;. That doesn&#x27;t make it good.<p>&gt; This instance only stands to you because it makes you uncomfortable.<p>It doesn&#x27;t make me &quot;uncomfortable&quot;. I think it&#x27;s <i>stupid.</i><p>&gt; Own up to the specific reason for that instead of acting like the existence of &quot;politics&quot; in a general sense is somehow evil.<p>Politics are not evil. <i>Including them in everything</i>, when they don&#x27;t need to be included, is just bad journalism. And by the way...I would say this if the mayor in question was on any side of the ideoligical spectrum. <i>Would you?</i>
        • nemomarx3 minutes ago
          Imagine if instead of NYC this was a small town, and a paper mentioned that even the mayor of the town stops in a certain store to get bagels every morning or whatever. Is that a partisan message?<p>At least to me that&#x27;s just a human interest element. The mayor is a notable person, it suggests something about popularity and ties it to a name the reader already might know. It&#x27;s the same as saying a celebrity shops there or whatever.<p>This case is a little different because NYC is a big city, but what&#x27;s partisan about it? They don&#x27;t mention his politics or views at all. He likes a sports team and he likes this shop. It&#x27;s being mentioned as a human interest detail, because he&#x27;s a minor celebrity with some readers. This is why it seems like you have some kind of political opinion about him - if you didn&#x27;t, why would it be notably political at all?