The article never explained why the author wanted an ARM setup. I can only consider this a spiritual thing, just like how the author avoids Debian without providing any concrete explanations.
So in this case, the only valid reason to choose it is to have the ARM ISA for the purpose of software development.
This Chinese CPU is the only Armv9 CPU that is available in anything else than smartphones or expensive computers from Apple, Qualcomm or NVIDIA (or in even more expensive big servers). So there may be cases when it is desirable for software development, even if it has some quirks.
Mobile x86 processors used in mini PCs these days (as in 2026) are very competitive in terms of power efficiency. I wouldn't go for ARM just for that factor alone, especially without side-by-side comparisons of benchmarks.
"Most people" aren't on HN, either.
The # of ARM servers at cloud providers are growing, but the ARM server options are severely lacking for most.
I, personally, would like to see more ARM growth (and I think we're heading that direction anyway... look at NVIDIA right now). Buying ARM servers that help push ARM software development forward is probably a good thing, IMO, from that POV.
That's rubbish; even the people who don't care about ISA will care about stuff like power draw and software availability (although ironically arm seems distinctly worse in terms of power draw here).
But, I hope there are other people like me who will take a premium to avoid reading x86 core dumps, which is sort of like getting nails driven through your eyes. Yes, there's more software optimized for the chips; it is still bad code.