The math is more complicated than that article presents, so I suggest not spending too much time on the exact numbers. Rather, your conclusion is what's important; that there is a "massive" amount of data in RAW files, compared to JPG 8-bit files (plus including other 8-bit file types similarly limited).
The other important point is that the "distribution" of image data is equally important, and all in-camera JPG files are produced from a data distribution algorithm defined by someone else, not you.
In short, while you have some limited control over the RAW capture data conversion to 8 bit by using different "picture styles", or whatever similar might be available for different cameras, even if you have custom styles defined they will be rather coarsely defined.
Significant too is that some of the highlight and shadow information is likely lost during the translation to 8 bits. Compare that to post-processed RAW files, generally processed in 16 bits and even 32 bits bits, and at your direction and discretion.
Sure, you may still down convert to 8 bit files for image file distribution and publishing, but up to that point you have much finer control in the process.