The article seems like contrarian clickbait. Take a bunch of things that are well known to be true and challenge them in an intelligent way - except the stuff r

The article seems like contrarian clickbait. Take a bunch of things that are well known to be true and challenge them in an intelligent way - except the stuff really is true and the challenges are just "sometimes not true" and "even a good thing can be overdone". It's a completely opportunistic, low-quality discussion framework even if done by a qualified person saying a bunch of technically correct things.