[robocat]

Normally I prefer El Reg but that is dry and uninformative, whereas the New Yorker article rocks a heap of other critical information.

Most importantly they are colouring in the people and their flaws, without specifically labelling them (e.g. psycho/sociopathic is never said, but the behaviours are).

The interactions with politicians and federal entities are critical to understanding the story.

What you see as irrelevant information is all extremely relevent if you care about protecting yourself against fraud, manipulation, bad actors, etcetera.

Think about the legal and social context of this article, and you will see other facets of the reporting that are clever.