This article is perhaps interesting, but it is not well-written, nor, I would argue, particularly well reasoned. The author makes gratituous assumptions about M

This article is perhaps interesting, but it is not well-written, nor, I would argue, particularly well reasoned. The author makes gratituous assumptions about Mike's reasoning, assumptions that appear unlikely to many readers, and fails to provide any justification for them. Read it again - how much of Mike's reasoning comes from Mike, and how much from the author? Did the author even ask Mike? It seems that, you and a few other commenters are predisposed to make the same assumptions as the author. You think it's ironic that so many folks in this comment section are questioning the headline - a headline which dovetails directly into the authors assumptions. I think it's pretty ironic that you didn't deep read the article, including spending time considering the author's assumptions, as you're simultaneously criticizing other people for not doing the same.