You're being downvoted because you clearly didn't read the article, despite your claim that you did. It's a funny post about how people order and share, not about bill-splitting.

You absolutely did not read the article based on your comment. I feel confident stating that, despite not looking over your shoulder.

I find it amazing how some people can make uninformed claims about something, and when their "knowledge" is called into question, instead of backing down, they choose to double-down and insist that they are in fact informed. All the while, plainly verifiable evidence is staring everyone in the face that they don't know what they're talking about.

The article had nothing to do with money. Perhaps you read too fast.

The article wasn't about the bill at all.

It was about sharing the food, and who chooses what items are ordered, and how to coordinate that so everyone ends up happier.

Because people are nuts. I'll never understand this adversarial and combatative attitude towards relationships

Adversarial? I don't believe you read the article. The article talked at length about why having an adversarial approach to dinner was a poor choice, and concluded with the idea that couples should practice 'full communism' at dinner, i.e., full cooperation when choosing the food and sharing it freely when it arrives.