If I'm reading it correctly, the TL;DR of the article is: given the client and the server, we need to be able to ingest messages to the client-server communication channel, and this channel should survive a disconnection. The article suggests using named pub/sub channels for communication, so that the “connection” between a given client and a given (cloud) server had a name and it was possible to ingest data chunks into that named channel.

I would suggest that there is a much, much older technology than pub/sub that can be used for such kind of data transfer: it's UDP, documented in 1980.

I can't stop thinking how overcomplicated our software engineering reality is so we need to reinvent layers and layers of stuff on top of the other stuff. We must make applications for browsers; browsers disallow basic network communication for the code they execute; so sending a chunk of data from a client to a server becomes a real adventure.

UDP and nothing layered on top?

Then you'll be reimplementing host discovery (i.e. how do clients find the host that has context on their request), retransmissions, flow control, congestion control, and many other things on top of it, and suddenly it doesn't sound so simple anymore.