It’s not a fundamental difference, it’s a fundamental constraint.
There are circumstances - and in real life those circumstances are very common - where you must accept that getting an exactly correct answer is not realistic. Yet nonetheless you want to ‘count’ things anyway.
We still call procedures for counting things under those circumstances ‘counting’.
The constraints on this problem (insufficient memory to remember all the unique items you encounter) are one such situation where even computerized counting isn’t going to be exact.
Frankly, most of what you consider counting in your comment needs error bars - ask anyone who operated an all-cash cash-register how frequently end-of-day reconciliation didn't match the actual cash in the drawer (to the nearest dollar.)
The following is a list from my personal experience - of presumably precisely countable things that didn't turn out to be the case: the number of computers owned by an fairly large regional business, the number of (virtual) servers operated by a moderately sized team, the number of batteries sold in a financial year by a battery company.
Counting is a subset of estimation, not a synonym.
If I estimated the number of quarters in a stack by weighing them, that would be different from estimating the number of quaters in a stack by counting them. Both methods of estimation have error bars.
The list you provide is of categories that don't have clear definitions. If you have a sufficiently clear definition for a category given your population, it has a precise count (though your counting methodologies will still be estimates.) If your definition is too fuzzy, then you don't actually have a countable set.
The algorithm accuracy scales with the ratio of memory to set size so you don't actually know if it is "close enough" without an estimate of of the set size.
I think the headline is clickbaity and the article makes no effort to justify it's misuse of the wors 'counting'. The subheadline is far more accurate and doesn't use that many more words.
I think I get your point completely, yet I'm not getting through.
Would you agree that 1+1=2? Or that pi is 3.14159...? These are mathematical truths, but quickly crumble in the real world. One apple plus one apple doesn't just equate to double the apple, no two apples are ever the same to begin with, there are no real perfect circles out there either, there is still value to those mathematical truths in that they make it evident that they are perfectly precise and that it is real world interaction which may bring error into the table.
Counting and estimation are different by definition. One is a full enumeration, the latter an extrapolation from sampled data. In both cases 'accuracy' is a factor. Even if we are counting the number of stars, it is still a difference of technique compared to estimating the number if stars.
I could try to count fibers in muscle or grains of sand in the beach, chances are accuracy would be low. One can be smart about technique for more accurate counts, eg: get 10M sand counters and give them each 1kg of sand which they then count the grains with tweezer and microscope. That is counting. At the same time, we could find an average count of grains in 1kg sand from a random 100 of our counters, and then estimate what an expected total would be. The estimate can be used to confirm the accuracy of the counts.
They are not really as far apart a you think. At small numbers, yes get are distinct. At large enough numbers, they in all practicality the same thing. E.g what’s the population of the US
There are circumstances - and in real life those circumstances are very common - where you must accept that getting an exactly correct answer is not realistic. Yet nonetheless you want to ‘count’ things anyway.
We still call procedures for counting things under those circumstances ‘counting’.
The constraints on this problem (insufficient memory to remember all the unique items you encounter) are one such situation where even computerized counting isn’t going to be exact.