Assuming this article is sort of tongue-in-cheek, I'll add something in the same spirit: The fact that the number of rolls required for the game is too low to be able to detect the unfairness does not imply that "it’s scientifically impossible for our opponents to know that we’re cheating." That's fallacious reasoning. In any situation where people actually cared about this and suspected a cheat, they could just say "Let's stop the game for a bit, roll the dice a bunch of times, and run some tests". There's no requirement that the dice only be rolled when required for the game. (If you refused to allow the test, that would obviously be even more suspicious.)

If parties are willing to roll the dice hundred or thousands of times and end up arguing about significance, the easier thing to do would be to bring a cup of water and roll them a couple of times in the water or load the water with salt till the dice float lol

But yeah it's tongue in cheek, talking about bayesian probability for the water stains opposite the sixes