I've worked on large engineering projects in physical disciplines. When I am the customer, I often bring in a group of independent experts to review the design products. Often these experts provide inputs that are not 100% usable in the form they're provided. One may have to disentangle their conflation of related-but-not-the-same issues, or ignore the specific solutions they propose, etc.

That being said, I have learned the hard way not to ignore or trivialize these review inputs, even if they are not immediately actionable as-provided. Users and reviewers are really good at figuring out weak areas or flaws even if they can't articulate the solutions, fully unentangle related issues, or do all the generalization or abstraction that would make those issues easier to address. There is usually some truth underlying the negative feedback.

The article looks to potentially be an example of an expert review in the above vein. If you are able to take a step back, you might find the HN discussion on this submission to provide further inputs to help figure out how any of this should be channeled into language, practice, and ecosystem improvements. Certainly there is more to work with here than little "to take away other than that we should work even harder on bugs and quality."