Every article is inherently biased due to the fact that there are inclusions and omissions. This is just a fact.
You're injecting your own personal view into GP's statement by adding a lot of weight into the distinction between the words "critical" and "incendiary" and "neutral", when GP made a very neutral and not as charged statement.
I don't see why the miraculous hypothesis gets to get away with not explaining why and how the miracle was done. Why should we reject it being a fraud just because we don't know how it was done, while accepting a miracle which we also don't know how was done?
It's very hard to take this article seriously when I'm flashbanged with one of the worst AI illustrations I've seen in my life right off the bat. Did the author even look at the image before publishing this?
I wish there was a way to leverage my M1 Mac to use this on my iPhone Pro 14. Like a private connection between my phone and computer to use the more powerful chip, even if it's limited to when I'm at home on the same Wi-Fi. Latency shouldn't be too bad.
But I think Apple is going to limit iPhones from doing something like that to boost sales of the 15 Pro and the future gens.
There are more options than those two. Pebble watches were built open enough to allow Rebble to get developed and let Pebble watches be used to this day, despite being officially unsupported. A lot of mainstream Android phones support LineageOS. A lot of older iPhones with older iOS versions can be jailbroken and used to this day with tweaks.