Otherwise, in my experience, it is utterly worthless for getting actual answers.
For instance, I've asked a total of 4 questions on the DBA Stack Exchange. Almost all of them were specific but easily generalized, weren't answered anywhere else. Three of them would have been easily answered by someone with good knowledge of the relevant products. (The other was only answered by significant trial and error.) On three of them, I was the only person to answer. Each of those took hours of research. On the fourth, someone else answered, but didn't appear to actually understand the question.
On StackOverflow itself, I've asked a single question. A moderator told me to do what I explicitly stated in the question I didn't want to do, and closed it as a duplicate.
The bounties are equally useless: earlier today I sacrificed 90% of my DBA reputation to get around 6 more views on my question. I'm pretty sure most of the views I got are from me refreshing the question.
The article suggests that the problem is that SO is too cruel to new clueless users. This isn't how it seems to me. Perfectly valid content gets down voted or closed.
SO is a killer resource for me as a new-ish coder but man, there's an uphill climb before you can avoid making people mad while using it.
If there was only one thing I could change it would be this: If someone marks a question as duplicate, and closes, make them provide a link to the 'original' question and a brief summary as to why it is a duplicate.
Closing something as duplicate and then forcing the user who submitted the question to do more digging comes off as hostile, lazy, and even condescending. Sometimes the original question is lazy and un-researched, but in most cases it is hard to find the right search term for the problem you have.