The article is also criticizing their particular version of scrum. For example "collecting points" or obsessing about them is not unadulterated scrum; the word points or planning poker are not even mentioned in the scrum guide. Any good developer, scrum master or book on scrum will tell you that story points are not a performance metric and they are only to be used by the PO and just for planning ahead.

There is little to criticise about pure unadulterated Scrum because there is surprisingly little prescribed and what little there is they openly tell you that you can change it in the retrospective. The real problem is that management, agile coaches (and unfortunately sometimes also some developers) often want to religiously apply every little thing they ever read in a book and seemed like a good idea. I think that solutions to all the problems the author mentioned are possible without deviating significantly or at all from scrum -- should that be important for whatever reason. The only prerequisite is that everyone involved is open to change.