The article feels like an excuse to talk about six different tangentially related topics at the same time. That's not a criticism of the article -- it's like li

The article feels like an excuse to talk about six different tangentially related topics at the same time. That's not a criticism of the article -- it's like listening to someone's wandering train of thought out loud, which is equally as interesting as the thoughts themselves. The article even ends with an ellipsis. I think it's a fine article, but the mental wandering could have gone any other way too. So I'm confused about what point you think people here are missing. There basically wasn't a point to the article, so people are either adding their own thought-wandering musings (totally appropriate, given the style of the post), or they're responding to the title, which is the only time the author really attempts to actually make a clear point. But the title of the article is flawed, and the author's musings do not adequately address the title. That's fine to point out. Nobody is missing any points.