Ok but the article you're replying in the comments to says "SQLite is all you need for nearly everything", and what the comment you're replying to is describing is, to use their very apt word choice, entirely ordinary.
So how do we square this circle of somebody being told both "SQLite is all you need for everything" and "it is not a good option for your totally ordinary use case"?
I think the answer is that you are a different person than the author of the article and you don't agree with the article's claim. Which, great, that was irskep's entire point!
I tend to agree with irskep that this SQLite architecture is really interesting, but I also don't quite get it. There seem to be a lot of missing details for totally bog standard applications, that people frustratingly seem to just not even mention - like the migrations thing, or how to do zero downtime deploys in general, or a few other things - as if those concepts are irrelevant or uncommon. But they aren't, they're important and typical things to think about.