"In today’s article, we’ll build a rudimentary blur algorithm and then pick it apart." Emphasis mine. Quote from the beginning of the article. This isn't mean

"In today’s article, we’ll build a rudimentary blur algorithm and then pick it apart." Emphasis mine. Quote from the beginning of the article. This isn't meant to be a textbook about blurring algorithms. It was supposed to be a demonstration of how what may seem destroyed to a causal viewer is recoverable by a simple process, intended to give the viewer some intuition that maybe blurring isn't such a good information destroyer after all. Your post kind of comes off like criticizing someone for showing how easy it is to crack a Caesar cipher for not using AES-256. But the whole point was to be accessible, and to introduce the idea that just because it looks unreadable doesn't mean it's not very easy to recover. No, it's not a mistake to be using the Caesar cipher for the initial introduction. Or a dead-simple one-dimensional blurring algorithm.