I see your point but I think it's fine to be angry and disappointed that an outfit that appeared to be trying to do it differently has abandoned the effort.
When there's strong suspicion you once hired militias to attack and intimidate unions [0] [1], paying off health experts feels a bit tame. It's still interesting to see how they went about it though, pushing the idea that exercise is more important in weight loss than your diet is pretty sneaky (and a patent lie).
This is a temporary fix. Despite the few conscientious objectors, ad-blockers will be ubiquitous. My best guess:
Big-name websites will show more native adds. Companies will be desperate after losing digital adds, especially with the move to on-demand TV - they'll look to spend more on these.
Other sites will look to survive by direct payment. We'll see more (and possibly higher) paywalls. Donations will become necessary for those who can't get away with paywalls. It will be harder to keep a small operation self-sufficient.
Basically, adds will either still be there (just less obvious) or you'll be paying the difference. This will come at the expense of many small sites.
I think this question is good precisely for the same reason a lot of people are saying it's bad; it's really easy to give a bad answer, especially if the job isn't close to your ideal job.
The article talks about waiting as long as it takes to get the best candidate, and in that regard, this question is perfect. Sure some people will do a good job at gaming question but if a candidate clears this hurdle, they are more likely to enjoy their role and therefore perform better.
"For now, I am done with Jeanne" - that seemed way to abrupt. It could be that she's neglecting the details on how she moved on. It seems more likely that it's just a temporary reprieve. She needs long term help, not just a hospital to patch her up.