The guy in question here "asdgasd", did almost the same thing after reading that article presumably which made its rounds on Reddit and HN. However his/her talk was bordering on trolling unlike Audrey's in the same channel.
I find it refreshing actually. It's nice to read a post once in a while that eschews the preamble/genericity that typically accompanies posts that are designed to be voted up somewhere or other.
However "poorly written" isn't really a useful response - I'm sure audrey would welcome some constructive criticism either here or as a comment to the blog post itself.
I'll admit the post was rather stream of consciousness and wandered back and forth a bit, but I happen to quite enjoy that style from time to time; the trick, I think, is to remember that a discussion of personal enjoyment and social interactions is a very different beast to a technical article and adjust your approach to reading accordingly.
Seriously though, if you have concerns about the writing, elaborate - the "hard to believe" part runs quite close to the sort of attack pg's "how to criticise" stuff abhors but if you were able to make sense of it -in spite- of the writing rather than -because- of it there must be something more than "poorly written" that you can contribute on the topic ...