If I may, I'd like to slightly temper the enthusiasm about Newport. I'm familiar with his work for 4-5 years. He has a few things of value to say, but he slathers them in too much filler and churns out "books" (they make the same point with small variations). To see what I'm talking about, have a gander at these previous threads[1][2]. (One of those threads also happens to be a New Yorker article; but that one was a fluff piece.)
The article in question itself is better than I expected, frankly. I just wish he resisted using the click-bait word "mind" here.