I think the point of the article and what we need to take away from it is that there is evidence that the speed of light itself is relative and variable. There is evidence that it at one time was faster and at another time was slower than it is now. So the real possibility exists that it was, at one time in the history of this universe, infinitely faster than it is now and that at another point, the brakes could have been put on it and it could have slowed to a level perhaps significantly if not infintely slower than it is now. But at all times the speed of light was the speed of light.
Now if the speed of light was at one time faster than it is now, what would that do to time? If the speed of light is variable, as is suggested by this article, then what, if anything, is constant?
This is what I parodied back in post 20 when I said "The important thing is that science has changed its story again, thus proving right all the people who say science is wrong." This is not what I actually think the lesson is, that you can assume the state of the evidence will stretch to be whatever you need in your quest for some predetermined goal. Such a cavalier attitude toward fact is not science.