This article is so consistently wrong that I can only assume that it's some sort of deliberate ragebait. It's not worth the time to read, let alone refute.

I don’t think it is deliberate rage bait.

It is looking more like the author genuinely thinks he understands something on a higher level and is a bit high on his own farts.

The excessive amount of emdashes does seem to imply it's LLM slop ragebait. The prompt probably included "make intentional mistakes in your arguments to drive engagement" or something like that.