[throwmeariver1]

Stop being so pernickety of course it's meant subjective and not for everyone. There just isn't a system for everyone.

[bnj]

Honestly it doesn’t seem pernickety to evaluate the article on its claims. The system is presented as “universal”, and the opening sentence asks us to enumerate the qualities of a perfect system that would work for everyone.

[jrm4]

Oh, come on. One should readily be able to understand that the author's goals are obviously technically aspirational despite being rhetorically lofty.

[lmpdev]

I'd argue it's not pernickety to highlight the underhandedness of branding something as a "universal system" if that system applies to an indeterminable but likely small percentage of readers.