Also much of the logic in this post just doesn't make sense to be honest.
It's far more naive to keep your entire investment in your employer than to sell all of it and diversify, even if neither of those is necessarily optimal. It's extremely naive to think that you have special insight into the future returns of a multi-billion dollar publicly traded company when you are a developer one year out of college, just because you work there.
What parts didn't make sense?
"Imagine that tomorrow the Department of Justice files an antitrust lawsuit against Google. The company is forced to split off into a dozen shards. My entire department is eliminated to cut costs, and I'm without a job. My life savings, held in large part in Google stock, pretty much disappears. The tech sector is in a recession, so I can't find a new job that pays enough to cover rent. My nest egg, my safety blanket, is gone."
It makes it sound as though you are living from paycheck to paycheck aside from your stock grants. It's possible that you are, even, but I think most people working at a big tech company would not be.
Selling granted stock is certainly good advice for someone, but not necessarily for everyone.
This implies it's advice to them, not necessarily to everyone.
Overall, it just seems a confused post. The circumstances it envisages are extremely remote, and if there was such a huge change in the industry, a bit of cash that you got from selling your first year's worth of granted stock isn't going to make much of a difference.