The takeaway points are good (well, except maybe for #4), and worth the read.
But I would argue that your initial thesis is largely a "straw-man" logical fallacy. You point at ways that people do unit-testing poorly (e.g. excessive mocking), and then conclude that unit-testing is "not worth it". Slavish adherence to a rule, instead of understanding what's behind the rule, will always produce crap. Doesn't mean the rule is wrong.
"Don't sacrifice design for testability"? Snort. I've been writing software since 1970, and IMHO unit-tests are the best damned thing that ever happened to design.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
At the end there's a summary
The takeaway points are good (well, except maybe for #4), and worth the read.
But I would argue that your initial thesis is largely a "straw-man" logical fallacy. You point at ways that people do unit-testing poorly (e.g. excessive mocking), and then conclude that unit-testing is "not worth it". Slavish adherence to a rule, instead of understanding what's behind the rule, will always produce crap. Doesn't mean the rule is wrong.
"Don't sacrifice design for testability"? Snort. I've been writing software since 1970, and IMHO unit-tests are the best damned thing that ever happened to design.