This is of course only my conjecture, seeing as they are undetected unless caught red-handed on some officially recognized crime. However, consider this: violent psychopaths don't differ from this gal in lack of empathy, fearlessness or in deceitfulness. They only have poor impulse control, so they fail at maintaining long-term "masks". You can read basically as much right in the article. Would you like a proverbial serial killer to be your boss? Now, do you really believe that impulsive violence can deal more damage than cool-headed, planned immorality? And there's something like 1% of them in the general population, and they are over-represented in positions of influence that allow to harm people (not because they're exactly good at anything aside from manipulation). It'd be awfully convenient if the invisible hand of the market took care of it all and their natural tendencies became an innocuous tool for generating profit.

How often do we rely on other people just not being terrible for petty reasons? Not grossly abusing their position whenever they can get away with it? Surprisingly a lot of our society runs on trust. And wherever it doesn't, expenses and efforts are necessary to disincentivize transgressors. So even 1% is enough to drive up the costs. People in small, homogenous villages can leave the keys outside their homes, because it's harder to get away with burglary there and they trust neighbors. In cities people need better doors and better locks and security cameras and strong police and a fair bit of paranoia to keep up with rural areas. It's because it's easier to stay anonymous in the community of millions. But even under perfect guarantee of anonymity, I wouldn't break into people's homes and rob them. Most other people of regular upbringing wouldn't as well. A psychopath, by definition, would, irrespective of upbringing. Same goes for black hat activities. How much does IT security cost?

Also, there's a lot of articles dedicated to psychopaths like this one. I don't remember people like her "significant other", or her oblivious parents, or her colleagues ever being given voice. Somehow we are to take them on their word, even though they say (because there's no point denying already) that they see no utility in being honest or reciprocal.

People with other non-standard neurotypes tend to be quite open about their condition, as they prefer to get more understanding and have a better rapport. They are not as glorified by the media, they are not thought of as sexy and enigmatic, yet they come open. But this anonymous interviewee, as I already pointed out, "doesn't think people need to know" what she is to know what to expect from her. But this is obviously nonsensical, given that people (except maybe bankers) operate with some basic trust and information about her psychopathy would change a lot in possible relationships (even assuming that there's some use for their kind). Likewise, no surgeon or CEO has come out with "I'm a heartless bastard with no empathy or code or morals, see, I may be different but that makes me better in my field". Such inconsistencies illustrate that they don't really have any sort of ethical framework, it's all just vague noise to lull a pitiful myopic herbivore into sleep. That's really how they think of people.

All of this is unconvincing, I know. It's probably impossible for a neurotypical, well-meaning person to realize the magnitude of difference without being subjected to psychopathic treatment. Without seeing how the mask you've known for years crumbles in front of evidence and there's no distress behind, since it's cheaper to discard you along with the shards.