Its a mixed bag, the author does make a few direct comparisons to MySQL.
In my experience MySQL replication and cluster defaults are generally a lot more robust, whether you're using Galera or PXC or even just master-slave replication. Other pain points the author discussed like Postgres effectively being major-version incompatible between different replicas are less of an issue in MySQL, especially since it most typically is configured with statement-based replication (ie, SQL statements sent over the wire instead of a block format for data on disk). With statement-based replication, as long as the same SQL statements are supported on all members of the cluster / replicas, the server versions are - usually - negligible. You wouldn't want to make a practice out of replicating between different MySQL server versions, but you could, and this is sometimes very useful for online upgrades.
MySQL absolutely fares better on the thread-per-connection front, a single MySQL server can manage a far larger pool of connections than a single equivalent Postgres server can without extra tooling.
InnoDB also uses index-organized tables, which tend to be more space-efficient in some scenarios, and has native compression too - but both MySQL and Postgres can benefit from running on compressed volumes in ZFS.
Honestly, I think most of the hate MySQL gets is perhaps rightfully justified for far earlier versions of the database or specifically for the MyISAM storage engine. But if you're using MySQL 5.7ish or later, InnoDB, and some of the other Percona tooling for things like online DDLs you've got an extremely robust DBMS to work with. My current company uses Postgres on RDS, but I've maintained complex MySQL setups in the past on bare metal, and either approach has been perfectly serviceable for long term production use.