I don't mind The Register, and overall I think the article was objective and informative. There's a couple things I think should be noted. Firstly, it mentioned Pop uses systemd-boot instead of GRUB and kind of inferred that was unusual. It might seem unusual when comparing it to the number of distributions still using GRUB, but if you consider things logically, using systemd-boot on a system that uses systemd it makes a lot more sense than using an old, bloated, unsecure chain-loader. Systemd-boot meets Freedesktop bootloader specifications for a bootloader with systemd. It's simple, fast and secure. You can use GRUB if you like, but it's probably only familiarity that keeps it around.
I don't think Pop's partition layout, use of encryption is "overly paranoid". It's timely and necessary!
And finally, I don't think the author completely comprehends what is possible with COSMIC desktop. I could understand their POV if COSMIC was actually like GNOME in that it is difficult to modify heavily without causing instability. Gnome modification also relies on third party software which GNOME often don't support. So saying "If you don't like GNOME, you won't like this" could be true if stock COSMIC wasn't able to be modified easily. However, COSMIC is supremely easy to modify and people who like KDE, Cinnamon or any other desktop will be surprised to learn that they will likely be able to use Pop!_OS with COSMIC and make it look like KDE, Cinnamon, Gnome or even Windows. It's only a matter of desktop configurations, most of which will be native in Settings, and with the difference being COSMIC will remain stable. I will also mention that Gnome have never had a native tiling solution.
COSMIC is not Gnome. It's not even a fork of Gnome. It doesn't even use GTK3. It's completely new, and when alpha2 is complete I'm sure many people will suddenly "get it". COSMIC is integrating many features that Gnome have been removing for years.
Register, I like you, but I think you missed some important considerations.