The Home section of the Times carries an item that reads, in its entirety, as follows:
A new superyacht by Zaha Hadid presents the billionaire playboy with a problem. There is undeniable prestige of trolling Mediterranean harbors in a yacht designed by a Pritzker-prize-winning architect. But the boat's outer shell is made of an interwoven network of support bands, which gives it a futuristic webbed look and obscures the primary decks. Who on shore will see the bikinied frolicking?
Ms. Hadid collaborated on the design of a master prototype, above left and right, with Blohm & Voss, a Hamburg-based shipbuilder known for innovation in the field (the firm worked with Philippe Starck on a superyacht, and built the world's second-largest private yacht, Eclipse). A fleet of five yachts is being developed from the original design, with each boat varying based on buyer preferences. First up is a 295-foot yacht named Jazz, top.
Could the exoskeleton be altered so its owner and guests can party in full view of the have-nots? For the right price, one imagines, anything is possible.
Well, can the yacht's design be altered, or not? Rather than doing any actual reporting by, say, calling the architect or the shipbuilder and asking, the Times resorts to imagination. That's lame.
The article also carries the bizarre assumption that the point of being on a boat is to show off to "the have-nots" on shore. I'm not sure where the Times gets this idea, because a lot of these large yachts tend to frequent pretty prosperous ports. Maybe some yacht-buyers like their privacy, which is why they are on a yacht instead of at, say, a hotel. The whole item is shot through with a tone of derisive envy toward anyone who might enjoy buying or renting such a vessel, a tone that is all too common when the Times writes about the non-Sulzberger rich.