I can't really see how you go from what the paper said to your conclusion about String Theory. A lot can be said about the latter, but I don't see how that paper changes anything about that in particular.
As for the paper itself.. I wasn't particularly impressed. A lot of it was about discussing nuances on how to interpret "Bedeutung" in English, and honestly, it's not that important. Or should I say "significant", which is what the paper claims is an incorrect translation in this case. Well, I know what "Bedeutung" means, and though I can agree that in this case "meaning" would be a more correct translation than "significant" (or "significance"), but really - that by itself doesn't change anything about how "planck units" should or would be used, and what for.
As for the paper itself.. I wasn't particularly impressed. A lot of it was about discussing nuances on how to interpret "Bedeutung" in English, and honestly, it's not that important. Or should I say "significant", which is what the paper claims is an incorrect translation in this case. Well, I know what "Bedeutung" means, and though I can agree that in this case "meaning" would be a more correct translation than "significant" (or "significance"), but really - that by itself doesn't change anything about how "planck units" should or would be used, and what for.