Sorry. Not buying it.
Git is efficient handling the tasks it is designed to handle. It handles code. It distributes across any connection you can think of, including sneakernet and email. Its merge capabilities are magic. The built-in forensics tools are liberating and amazing. The workflows enabled, supported and encouraged by Git can be quite beautiful.
However, Git is complicated. Git does not handle large files well. Git does not handle binaries well. Git submodules are weakly supported. Git creates more work for me because I spend more time cleaning up my commits to ensure good project history.
But I'm ok with that. Because I have a better project history. I have a cleaner project. I have much clearer visibility of my project. And yes, I can commit offline.
I do think the last one is important. I craft my commits locally and keep them ready to share when I can get to a server. Most of the time I'm already on a server, so it's no big deal. But when I'm not, I'm still able to get work done.
I once waited 14 hours for 'svn commit' to complete on a vpn from a hotel in China. And I had to wait because I needed to switch branches. 14 hours. Chinese internet sucks, sure. And I might need to wait an unacceptable length of time for a Git push to complete on the same network (if I was still doing stupid things like tracking binaries in the repo). But if it turned out to be unacceptable, I wouldn't have to wait. Git gives me options.
Speaking of options, I truly enjoy both history rewriting and the security ensured by sha-1 prevention of undetectable history rewriting.
The article reads more like a manifesto than an argument. He preaches derisively to the choir of detractors.
And Github? Sorry; not why I'm using Git. It's nice that it makes foss collaboration stupid-easy, but the web interface is terrible and it doesn't really do anything for as far as Git is concerned. I converted to Git before Github was a registered domain.