Exactly this on the last point. Although rereading this the distribution point is explained poorly.
People waltz in with assumptions and then complain when they don’t work because they don’t really understand the tools they are using. The author is one of them. It’s a bad article and the author should not be using or demonstrating things they clearly don't understand.
Isn't that the whole point? That the graph type is very easy to misunderstand. If you are right, and not even a professional data visualization consultant properly understands the graph, then who will?
People waltz in with assumptions and then complain when they don’t work because they don’t really understand the tools they are using. The author is one of them. It’s a bad article and the author should not be using or demonstrating things they clearly don't understand.