Do you think that's a fair comment on the article?

Hang around in a place like r/bitcoin, and you'll find that criticism is often met with redirection toward fiat rather than having a legitimate discussion about how to address shortcomings.

Shortcomings should be addressed by forking bitcoin into yet another altcoin and demonstrate the proposed improvement over there. We now have 700+ alternative "altcoins" in circulation, most of them demonstrating pretty much nothing at all. Real breakthroughs are once in a blue moon, while all kinds of useless criticisms are plentiful. In that sense, we do not want to have a "legitimate discussion" but to observe legitimate altcoins embodying improvements, while they are performing in the real world.

Is a legit concern. Money can be distroyed also but is just reprinted. Bitcoin could implement a similar procedure in some way for marking lost bitcoins and regenerate it.

On the other hand, If a crashed hard-drive contains some money, maybe at some point could be economically feasible to try to recover and copy it in a laboratory?.

If it's not, whats the reason?

.0004 BTC is 50 cents. So this is one reason why, but still it's comparable to bank fees to get one of these useless coins every now and again.