Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do try to be charitable, but it almost seemed like a sick game to me. "Here, let me convince my husband that he needs to go take the baby to the hospital. Now, let's stalk him to see if he actually did it!" Anyways, this turned me off. It could have been "forgiven" (if this word even applies) had it contributed something meaningful. Sadly, it didn't, so it just comes off as neurotic stalking.
I don't have that take at all. The husband knew he was being tracked, she got permission from him prior to putting any tracking devices on him. > It could have been "forgiven" (if this word even applies) had it contributed something meaningful Just because you are aware of the dangers of tracking and how these devices work it doesn't mean others are equally aware.
However, what seems to have happened in reality, is that they had previously played a harmless game of "find the Airtags". Then, some time later, possibly a large period, she uses those Airtags to track the husband. It's hard to say in either direction if the husband knew and expected to be tracked to the hospital. I think that was a deliberate choice - but it still comes off deceptive, if this is just happenstance.
If any of this had contributed meaningfully to the main points, I would tolerate it a lot more - that's my biggest contention. The fact that the author isnt a perfect person is just a side gripe that I have with plenty other articles.