The argument is of course about the speed of light in a vacuum. I assume you forgot your own </sarcasm>.
"The argument is of course about the speed of light in a vacuum. I assume you forgot your own </sarcasm>."
There is no vacuum. Not anywhere in the physical universe. Did you not learn that in your freshman physics class? An absolute vacuum is just a theoretical concept, which does not exist in nature.
Therefore, it is impossible to actually measure the speed of light in a vacuum, since no such vacuum exists. It stands to reason that estimations of the speed of light, in such a theoretical vacuum, might vary.
This article is silly, and misunderstand that science readjusts its constants, based on new information.
Do you really believe that the speed of light in a vaccum is actually known, down to the last decimal point? It is not, since no measurement can be taken in a medium that does not exist.
That said, the article misrepresents the actual findings, in my opinion. That's the trouble with popular science information.
Has the speed of light changed, or has the estimation of it changed?
I do not take this source as a scientific publication, any more than I take the National Enquirer as a news publication.