This reminds me of why I shoot and process photos in 48-bit colour, when it will be viewed, likely, on a screen that can only reproduce 24-bit colour. (Okay, nitpickers, my DSLR sensor can only output 36 bits, and the other 12 bits are just padding, but you get the picture. I made a pun! yay!) Also, the typical human eye can't see much finer than 24-bit colour, so why do I go to the trouble? It gives you more freedom to manipulate the file.
Annnyyywayy...
1: Gizmodo really should get out of hi-fi writing (as should CNN- they just had a series of wretched op-eds about hifi stuff). This just isn't their area of expertise.
2: They do have a point- 24-bit files are most of the time going to be a gimmick for the studios to make more money, as 95% of the systems the files will be played on won't be able to reproduce the difference.
3: Their article is written to the more average person, and we are looking at this from a different perspective. There's no need to get too angry, as we aren't their target audience.
3.5: So, basically, what I mean is that the article wasn't written with the serious audiophile in mind.
Analogy:
Doctors cringe when visiting WebMD.