[barrettondricka]

I admit to being rude and to being a very bad builder myself.

But the article is bad. Just about every piece of evidence has some sort of issue. Correlation-causation, or not enough data, or just assumptions. The wolf stuff (seems to be) based on only 2 observations. The author cites big tech in CA, but then describes a single clothing company that has a high random metric that is supposedly an accurate indicator of all of the above.

And the connections between arguments are not even that good. Skimming over it, I wasn't sure what the article's point was.

As for the conclusion, the vague words on what could be done are the kind of stuff everyone is trying anyway for other reasons, and it isn't (?) working.