Kinda unrelated to the article's subject, but twice in this article does the author have "a person familiar with the matter said." Who is this person, how are

Kinda unrelated to the article's subject, but twice in this article does the author have "a person familiar with the matter said." Who is this person, how are they familiar with it, and why should anyone take that seriously? It's not like you couldn't find a person who is in the industry and has that knowledge to go on the record, and that pseudonymous "source" feels like less of a factual source and more of an editorialization. In fact, the only real "sources" in the article are a naive-sounding 22 year old and a headhunter that draws baseless correlations. I know this isn't uncommon these days... but this article just feels like super weak journalism trying to make an editorial conclusion without real data.