It's a well-written and nice article, but just kinda weird in spots, saying that the code is more self-evident and readable, whereas I think it's sometimes making a language do something it only does with considerable strain.
Insofar as python is essentially pseudocode, I can get the appeal of writing non-pythonic python, but ... it strains it a bit to do this for such extensive use of lambda, the most awkward bit of syntax in python, one that almost always has more readable alternatives.
Any time I see a use for lambda (typically only with the functional builtins), I just write a function instead. Two extra lines are worth it for the readability alone. You can also reuse a function, which makes more sense to me than potentially writing the same lambda multiple times.
I do like that the author used Python, even if it was only for the purpose of pseudocode. Python is, after all, "executable pseudocode". It's also the only language I really know in-depth.
Insofar as python is essentially pseudocode, I can get the appeal of writing non-pythonic python, but ... it strains it a bit to do this for such extensive use of lambda, the most awkward bit of syntax in python, one that almost always has more readable alternatives.