Can't say I agree. I think the commenters taking that tack are maybe adding a filter or two of their own to what the author is saying and being reactive to the less interesting parts of the article. That leads to a somewhat boring, if also exciting, round-of-denunciation sort of thread. (Boring-plus-exciting is the alcohol-plus-amphetamines of internet forums.)

They're also ignoring the ways the author is already piling on himself. I think that's a shallow reading and a bit harsh. The common trope in our culture is for the rest of us to become hostile when someone with money goes on about their problems ('what's he got to complain about?'). I get why, but it's an oversimplifying reflex that doesn't breed good discussion. Human lives are complex things.

IMO the more interesting parts of the article have to do with tradeoffs and unintended consequences. Doing what it takes to achieve a goal, including a socially laudable/enviable goal, can leave you stuck and/or damaged in other ways. These dynamics are more interesting than just seeing someone as 'an asshole'.