I understood the comment differently: The OP did write the post because the purpose of the Times article was spot on—not because the ‘right’ people got the credit.
I did not mean to suggest that anyone had been slighted or denied any due credit when I stated that neither EY nor LW was mentioned. As I read the article, I had just been looking for mentions of EY or LW, and I figured that others might as well, so that is why I mentioned it.
No article can cover everything. As Gunnar stated, I thought it was a great article!
I don’t think that’s the right explanation in this case.
I understood the comment differently: The OP did write the post because the purpose of the Times article was spot on—not because the ‘right’ people got the credit.
I did not mean to suggest that anyone had been slighted or denied any due credit when I stated that neither EY nor LW was mentioned. As I read the article, I had just been looking for mentions of EY or LW, and I figured that others might as well, so that is why I mentioned it.
No article can cover everything. As Gunnar stated, I thought it was a great article!