I'd guess the GP was pointing out that there are uninteresting results that those less qualified in maths see as some sort of magic. Maybe like those silly "choose any number multiply by x, etc etc did you get 7, magic!" games. Or:

    9*9+7 = 88
    98*9+6 = 888
    987*9+5 = 8888

While not exactly trivial, and there's still maths required to understand the patterns, this prime result is much deeper and more interesting. The GP almost passed over it because they though it might fall into the less interesting category.

Right, but the result in original article is clearly not in this category.

That's true, but noticing a phenomenon using an arbitrary base isn't necessarily meaningful. Such as how in base 10 the digits of numbers divisible by 3 or 9 sum up to a number divisible by 3 and 9. There is an underlying principle here, but the specific presentation is just an artifact of the base. This article does a poor job explaining what (or whether) there is some new principle at work here or if this pattern is just a specific presentation of using base 10.