It is against the rules to imply that the person you are responding to hasn’t read the article, but I don’t think it is against the rules to implore the community to read it, generally.
Also just to be more explicit, people can (should) read the article and decide. It is not super long and it is engagingly written. I think the author is kind mythologizing his job… there’s clearly a fraud component to how he got better, and a skill improvement component. It isn’t obvious which contributed more from his telling, and given that his telling is probably inclined to put him in a good light, I lean toward the fraud.