[eyelidlessness]

That’s my impression as well. Almost always when people advocate narrow tests without mocks they end up using something that’s not called a mock but ultimately isn’t distinguishable from a mock.

Which I don’t think necessarily invalidates the article (which I’ve only skimmed so far, but already strikes me as having a lot going for it), just some terminology used. It’s perfectly reasonable, regardless of terminology, to say: here are some techniques that encourage testability and high confidence in those tests. And it appears to me there’s a lot of that in the article. So with that said, I’m gonna go give it a more thorough read :)