Since when are we supposed to read the articles? /s
Seriously though, I do not have a NYT subscription (my guess is only 10-15% of HN readers do), and I don't even bother trying to get around the paywall. I just go straight to the HN comments where you can find enough details to understand the story. This works fairly well for NYT articles because the headlines are usually clear (not clickbait) and you can assume the facts are generally accurate.
The point is that the comments will discuss the surprising or unusual parts of the story, and those are the ones I'd be interested in too. Then people also post the scientific article or links to other background info if you really want to dig.
If after reading the interesting comments, I want to comment myself, I'll go back and read the article to make sure I don't repeat something that was already written.
Seriously though, I do not have a NYT subscription (my guess is only 10-15% of HN readers do), and I don't even bother trying to get around the paywall. I just go straight to the HN comments where you can find enough details to understand the story. This works fairly well for NYT articles because the headlines are usually clear (not clickbait) and you can assume the facts are generally accurate.
The point is that the comments will discuss the surprising or unusual parts of the story, and those are the ones I'd be interested in too. Then people also post the scientific article or links to other background info if you really want to dig.
If after reading the interesting comments, I want to comment myself, I'll go back and read the article to make sure I don't repeat something that was already written.