Even so, ISTM that picking through the linked article for its many flaws in reasoning would have been more interesting even than not-quite-endorsing its conclusions.

What I find interesting is the question, what motivates an influential blogger with a large audience to pass on this particular kind of factoid?

The ICCI blog has an explanation based on relevance theory and "the joy of superstition", but unfortunately (?) it involves Paul the Octopus:

We may get pleasure from having our expectations of relevance aroused. We often indulge in this pleasure for its own sake rather than for the cognitive benefits that only truly relevant information may bring. This, I would argue, is why, for instance, we read light fiction. This is why I could not resist the temptation of writing a post about Paul the octopus even before feeling confident that I had anything of relevance to say about it.

(ETA: note the parallel between the above and "I post these things because they are interesting, not because they're right". And to be lucid, my own expectations of relevance get aroused for the same reasons as most everyone else's; I just happen to be lucky enough to know a blog where I can raise the discussion to the meta level.)