The linked article is written in an absurd way. Clockwise is not a fundamental measurement, it's relative to the viewer.
What the original article explains, is that this is relative to our observer point of view (obviously).
It's still very interesting, since, disregarding any potential interaction in our local group, randomness was expected and we should see around 50/50 rotating either way unless one of the explanations came into play.
What the original article explains, is that this is relative to our observer point of view (obviously).
It's still very interesting, since, disregarding any potential interaction in our local group, randomness was expected and we should see around 50/50 rotating either way unless one of the explanations came into play.