That's actually the part that I found a little bit ironic (though I very much enjoyed the post), considering that the author links to and praises a study that p

That's actually the part that I found a little bit ironic (though I very much enjoyed the post), considering that the author links to and praises a study that points out that many A/B tests result in illusory wins because growth teams end up testing a zillion different variations and stop tests early whenever one alternative seems promising. In such an environment, you're bound to end up with all kinds of weird "winners" but there's no guarantee that (1) they're actually better than the alternatives you tested and (2) even if they are, that the advantage is stable and not just a temporary novelty effect.