I feel like this article is pretty skewed in its representation of a truly brilliant individual. It seems as if a lot of key aspects of his life were conveniently left out, and I can't help but feel uncomfortable with the way you've delved into his personal life in an effort to label him as an awful person. This approach reminds me of sensationalist tabloid journalism more than anything else.

Sure, nobody's perfect, and he's definitely made his share of blunders. However, to equate these mistakes with him being a terrible person seems a bit too far-fetched. I can't shake off the feeling of bias in your writing, and it seems rather unjust.

Also, the way you've quoted from Isaacson's book gives the impression that the book is solely a chronicle of his missteps, which I believe is an incomplete representation. It's essential to remember that there's always more than one side to a story.