So, as a scientist working in fluid mechanics, I certainly find these two papers interesting. But the interesting bits are highly technical. There doesn't seem

So, as a scientist working in fluid mechanics, I certainly find these two papers interesting. But the interesting bits are highly technical. There doesn't seem to be either a common link between the two papers, nor a good reason why these specific ones are reported on by Ars. The only thing they seem to have in common, is that they were both posted to EurekAlert (which is a place where universities can post press releases) at about the same time. These press releases seem to be the basis for the Ars article, but unfortunately the Ars piece is full of pretty basic mistakes... TL;DR: if you like bubbles and foams, go read the actual articles, please don't read the Ars piece.