It's an interesting theoretical result but not at all practical. Sort of like the n lg n multiplication algorithm: it's nice that we can do it in principle, but you'd never actually use it.

There are several reasons it's not practical.

First, their construction turns a t time, s space algorithm into a t*2^s time, s space, no-intermediate-measurement algorithm. That is a horrendous time overhead.

Second, although the article kind of plays it up like measurement is bad, it's actually one of the most useful tools in your quantum computing playbook.

Any kind of error correction is going to require constant measurement of parity checks to catch errors before they spread. If you don't do this, you're just not going to be able to do a large computation like factoring. The machines are just too noisy.

Another very common thing to have to do in a quantum computation is to compute an intermediate value, do something with it, then uncompute it. Without measurement, the uncomputation is just as expensive as the computation. With measurement, the uncomputation is often cheaper. Sometimes half as expensive. Sometimes quadratically less expensive.

So, like I said, very interesting from a theory perspective but I suspect actively harmful as a practical technique. But you never know; maybe this is the first step leading to something that really would be used during a computation.