I dare say: All of it. All of it is bad. The parts are bad. The sum of the parts is also bad.

It starts in a weird way, by trying to play on a familiarity when the reader doesn't necessarily possess that familiarity at all.

It then continues to get weirder, and preachier, like the ramblings of someone who really likes to hear themselves talk but who doesn't actually have much to substance to convey at all.

Like: That's the headline of nearly four months of work? No. That kind of superlative statement is just a waste of space, and it's wrong anyway: The headline is the headline, and that headline is at the top of the page.

Seemingly every single paragraph is trying harder than the last one to try to sell itself. It's an awful body of work.

It reminds me of the stuff I hear in the city when the guy is standing on the corner shouting his continuously-impactful view of some damned thing or other, and who is both impossible to ignore and impossible to listen to.

The relief I experience when I get to move on -- away from that person's voice -- is immense, like the relief of moving away from https://mihai.dinculescu.dev/posts/tapo-speaks-tpap/ is also immense.

this is an interesting specimen. vitriol is off the charts even for a solicited critique - I suspect here is a case where the pangram verdict is acting as a sort of license for the critic to treat the author as subhuman