[Rury]

>The point of the article is that dark matter is the result of doing 1, not 2.

The article may claim or argue this, but supports this claim rather poorly.

Look the fact that dark matter is even a topic, is because our models are wrong somehow. Dark matter is a convenient theory, but essentially a non-testable one, and one that has yet to have any real predictive power (outside of it accurately predicting things where our models fail at predicting things - but this isn't a real case, as it's essentially circular reasoning when it's existence is inferred from the errors in our model in the first place).