New York Times learns the possible risks of programmatic advertising

This is one of those cases where humans are so good at seeing patterns they'll intuit the presence of an intelligence (artificial or otherwise) where none exists. The only algorithm here is "Apple paid for a placement on this date", rather than anything content-aware.

(With regards to how actual content-aware ads treats this sort of case: My recollection is that waaaaay back in the day AdSense shipped with a "death and tragedy filter" such that if it detected the page was about them it would turn ads off. The Google which made that decision is no longer - these days it's an unchecked-by-default setting controlled by advertisers. Somewhat surprisingly for Google, the filter was really unsophisticated - on the order of a simple keyword blacklist. Some of my SEO buddies had CMSes which would flag words thought to be problematic for writers, so that an innocuous phrase like "Getting your taxes done doesn't have to be a Greek tragedy" didn't end up killing ad revenue from the page.)

As a comment on the site says - this is almost certainly not programmatic advertising but a premium placement paid for by Apple at least a few days ago.

Also, I don't see how this is intellectually stimulating, of interest to a Hacker, or anything other than a mildly amusing picture. Amusing pictures have a place, but this doesn't seem to belong here.

This is not newsworthy. If you hit the refresh button enough times on upsetting news stories I am sure you will find a somewhat offensive ad every now and then.

I've worked with Apple on homepage advertising and believe the likelihood of that placement being programmatic is very low.

> reproduced without further comment

Maybe you should add a comment? What's the problem?

Only thing I can think of is the jet in the ocean and a picture of the ocean, but that's a stretch.