[chipotle_coyote]

I don't think the author describes Khoo as a villain, just as someone who is very "money-motivated" despite explicitly saying otherwise. Yes, it's subjective to say "the cachet of working at Penny Arcade doesn't outweigh the negatives of this job, and the fact that the posting tells you up front that it's a shit job doesn't change that," but the author certainly makes a good case as to why he believes that. Is it conjecture to say that Khoo wants to pay under market rate for one job that should really be done by more than one person at market rate? Well, if you believe the job listing that Khoo wrote, not really. That's pretty much how he described the job, and that's a perfectly reasonable inference from it.

Also, I don't see an actual ad hominem attack in here. Buecheler is blunt, but it seems to me he's very explicitly attacking Khoo's actions and policies here. He may be arguing that those actions make Khoo kind of a jerk, but that's not ad hominem. (Buecheler clearly argues Khoo is a terrific businessman, in fact; he just argues that he's using his powers for evil.)

You can certainly argue that "You should know it's a shit job, here's how it's a shit job, but hey it's for Penny Arcade! Woo!" is a fine enough job posting because it's up front about its intrinsic shittiness. But I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to respond with, "Yes, but not only is a shit job still a shit job, this particular one is a shit job at a company that certainly has the resources to make it not a shit job and is choosing to make it so because they're a high-profile, loved-by-nerds company and can get away with it." That response appears to be fundamentally correct.