I don't care about the clickbait, if it gets someone to realise that in most cases, latency is at least as important a figure of merit than bandwidth or packet

I don't care about the clickbait, if it gets someone to realise that in most cases, latency is at least as important a figure of merit than bandwidth or packet loss, that article does its job. Long, uncontrolled queues that live at fast-slow transition points and induce pathological latency is a very generic issue and is certainly not unique to IPv4 packets getting bufferbloated at CPEs or whatnot. It's always tempting to use cheap memory to make huge buffers to try to increase utilisation (and thus bandwidth) or decrease queuing loss. Any practitioner who works in any role (designer, programmer, operator/administrator) with packet-switched networks should have some familiarity with this sort of problem -- even if it's just at a "some queuing is good because it increases link utilisation but if queues are too big and are allowed to stay full then latency goes to hell and the network breaks" level.