[Splendor]

> While I have some criticisms, most of the historical facts are correct. There are places where I could nitpick, but most of the facts are solid. I think the problems with the articles are in tone and in conclusions.

The softest of takedowns.

[potatoz2]

I agree, and it seems like most commenters (so far) seem not to have read the “takedown”. What the author mostly criticizes is that the NYT is not providing enough evidence, not that things are clearly wrong.

[UncleMeat]

Sadly, the author's title produces the same sort of response that NYT's title does. Nuanced analysis is blown over by people reacting to titles.