Is it just me or does this article feel kind of shallow? Like there's a lot of fancy text boxes and nice big text, but it doesn't cover a whole lot of informati

Is it just me or does this article feel kind of shallow? Like there's a lot of fancy text boxes and nice big text, but it doesn't cover a whole lot of information. Like how did the MTA build this infrastructure? Who lead it? What went into their decision making process for OS/2? Were there other options? They briefly discuss how the MTA is moving to contactless payments and casually mention Andy Byford's hiring (incorrectly citing him as the former head of the Tube—unless the MTA hired another former Tube employee?), but they don't delve into that either. It's nice to have a succinct article, but I'd much prefer a long form version. If this article ran in say, the New Yorker, it'd provide a level of depth and information that I'd find really valuable. I assumed from the design of the site, namely the very pretty interludes, that I'd be in for some really good long form journalism. Unfortunately not the case. Edit: Here's a funny snippet from an article about Andy Byford in which the credit card processing for the Metrocard machines goes down. > It seemed that only Miguel knew how to log in to the relevant subprocessor and do the reboot. > “Where is Miguel?” > He was in a car, apparently, on his way home. He wasn’t answering his cell. He lived in Port Jervis. > Byford looked at Meyer and Nugent. They shook their heads. Port Jervis was upstate, three hours away. > “Unbelievable.” > More calls were made, more cages rattled. Was it really possible that hundreds of vital machines, the main revenue engines of the subways, could be repaired by only one person at the M.T.A.? It seemed so. Perhaps an upgrade isn't such a bad idea.