It is a radical solution, and one I haven't implemented for myself yet. But there are some reasonably serious arguments for it, and it would solve your immediate problem.
I think NY Times content is frequently good enough that the inconvenience of various methods of getting the content makes it worthwhile.
I greatly dislike paywalls, and disagree, strongly, with HN's tolerance of them. But as paywalls go, the NYTimes' is rather permeable.
And for the obligatory "but writers/publishers need to be paid":
https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2vm2da/why_inf...
https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/1uotb3/a_modes...
A $100/year fee would cover all existing Internet advertising paid by the 1 billion richest inhabitants of the world (roughly: US, EU, Canada, Japan, Australia, NZ).
A $500/year fee would cover all advertising, full stop. Again, for the 1 billion richest inhabitants.
I would prefer indexing this (progressively) to income.