Through the years, referencing that title has indicated author understands the proposal in question is a truly terrible idea, satire, deliberately ludicrously bad (solving hunger by eating babies) in order to point out it's a seriously skewed problem.

It's not clear this author thinks his proposal is ludicrously bad, or satire.

I believe the author thought the proposal itself ("I will bill you hourly for the time I spend I spend reviewing your hourly bill") was a terrible idea, and in that section, I understood the tone. But he kept it up for the rest of the article as well, despite explicitly saying "Alright, that was fun, but now I’ll break character." I don't think he was being satirical at that point.

I feel guilty for complaining about the tone rather than addressing the substance, but it was really hard to concentrate on the substance through the tone, and I think the tone speaks to the level of empathy the author has for his colleagues. That matters a lot when you're making an argument like this.