The article (which basically says Blazor is a bit cumbersome and pointless) has plenty of truth (and a few half-truths) to it but it's assuming that you're using it in a context where pure js + html would just be much better for the end user (wait, isn't pure native better for the end user..).

What it doesn't really tackle is the productivity from the developer perspective, very little mental context switching, code re-use/sharing with backend models etc (api models, validation etc) and the surprisingly productive nature of the Razor templating language. It's a combination that makes sense for developers, less so for end users. Most end users for these apps will be corporate intranets (love that the article mentions SEO, yeah right). When these same corporate users were using monolithic WPF apps, did anyone care then? If you're replacing a shared spreadsheet cooked up by Tim on the data analytics team, how much does JS really matter.

Consider if the same Devs opted for react or angular etc, would the end users actually care?

Ultimately it's up to the businesses to decide if this makes sense and the technology is driven mainly by developer sentiment, which circles back. If this is an easy way to make corporate apps, then why not.