While it's always charming to read the productions of an over-excitable author, it's as well to have some domain knowledge firmly in place before taking such productions at face value. For, as is so often the case, the author doesn't actually present a credible argument.
Beginning with the supposedly "random" effects cited near the beginning of the article, the author's confusion is evident. While the article is nominally about chaos theory (a topic to which we'll return in a moment) the author strays off into the general topic of how we can never achieve perfect predictability (which has nothing to do with chaos theory). One example is entirely wrong: dropping nuclear bombs on unarmed civilians had no impact on the end of the war with Japan - documents show clearly it was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria that prompted the Japanese High Command to issue notice of surrender (they weren't even aware of the Nagasaki and Hiroshima atrocities at the time). So whether the bombs were dropped on one city or another would clearly have had precisely zero impact on the eventual outcome. The second example is merely trite: the Chicxulub impact would obviously have had slightly different implications had the asteroid struck a different place on the Earth but again this has precisely nothing whatsoever to do with chaos theory.
So, what does much-misunderstood chaos theory actually say? Simply that dynamically unstable systems of a certain type can flip from one semi-stable configuration to another in a way that is not entirely predictable. The butterfly's wings story is meaningless because it fails to take into account dampening effects. Just as with quantum uncertainty, dampening effects ensure there is no "quantum behavior" at large scales because of all the inter-system interactions that have the net effect of introducing classical-like properties. Were this not the case, even the most vague weather forecasting would be utterly impossible.
Thus, while we can appreciate the author's evident "gee whiz!" enthusiasm, the results are not to be considered an adequate account of the phenomenon the author believes they are explaining.
