> [title repeats 3 times] > rid the world of the misconception that a pixel is a little geometric square. > The little square model is simply incorrect. It h

> [title repeats 3 times] > rid the world of the misconception that a pixel is a little geometric square. > The little square model is simply incorrect. It harms. > I show why it is wrong in general. Why the bluster? He makes a decent case for this point in the domain of graphics processing; what he calls "correct image (sprite) computing". But the narrow focus on computer graphics undermines these broad generalizations. There are many other domains that can be represented in pixel-based data models. Climate, terrain, population and land cover mapping are just a few domains where the use of a pixel as a "little geometric square" is a perfectly viable approach. Ultimately, if the message is "think about how your data model maps to reality" - I agree. But why the hyperbole? Why shit on an entire model because it doesn't fit for your very specific use case?