> The article is very interesting in my view. It states that a sampling of the numbers do not follow expected random patterns.

If you try a whole bunch of fairly arbitrary metrics, e.g. how many end in 7, how many end in 5, how many have consecutive increasing digits, and you mine the data into finding two arbitrary ones that random chance would say occur 5% of the time, does that really tell you anything about the data? I find this article a stunning example of the dangers of mathematical ignorance.