I concur with the comments I’ve read, that this article is deeply flawed and rather than moving on from the original illustration just comes up with another analogy that drowns in its own complexities and complications.

The most obvious point is the totally spurious assumption that the stature of the 3rd character is diminished by his size. This is a minefield that I wouldn’t care to get into. I’m shocked the author didn’t see the myriad of issues raised by effectively undermining a perfectly reasonable meme.

From the get go I could see this article consuming itself and in the end it comes across as a complaint rather than a declaration and while it leaves a perfectly good analogy in ruins it does little more than sort through the rubble.