There is nothing in the linked article that would require a content warning. No sexually explicit or even implicit content whatsoever.
Nothing wrong with it, but giving some sort of content warning isn't the worst thing in the world.
Personally, it does get annoying sometimes when two completely unrelated topics are fused into one - personally I'd find this kind of content equally as annoying as that cringe Gen X "Semiconductors with Brittany Spears" shtick, but to each their own.
There is nothing wrong with content flags or warnings, especially for stuff with a sensual or potentially sexual connotation.
No one owes you a content warning that "this site contains cartoons and that might annoy you."
In most cases, people do owe content warnings for content that is potentially sexual in nature.