You lead with dunking on the author (yes, me) for describing a reality that you later acknowledge yourself. The article only says that SemVer in practice cannot be relied upon and describes ways how to deal with that fact of life. Nothing else.
Between opening up with "Over the years, well-intentioned people experimented with adding meaning to those numbers..." and a reference to Hyrum's Law, your article definitely reads as a criticism of SemVar and pins it as a failed process. It isn't until 1/3 of the way through that you call out the actual failure in the process: The user. Personally, I think the 'failure' of Semvar is in large part the fault of the Node community and their lack of rigor in their releases. SemVar works fine if used correctly.
That's not part of the article, but I indeed think that a process that (almost) nobody applies correctly, is not a good process. Telling people to just try harder is never the solution to anything.
I acknowledge the value of SemVer both here and in the article, but in the practical world it simply does not deliver the value that its proponents claim and users have to deal with it. The article is supposed to help with that.
