The assertion that it is possible or the attribution to Feynman? Scientific American [1] references Feynman's 4th Messenger lecture at Cornell: "Symmetry in Physical Law" (1964) [2] [3]
Modern pixel artists far from "misunderstand" the legacy of pixel art. They're specifically designing for a sensibility and context that didn't exist when pixel art was originally made. Actually talk to pixel artists and they'll explain this to you themselves perfectly fine
I have no idea about modern pixel art artist’s thought process, but it’s generally under-appreciated that CRT-era pixel art looks significantly different on todays displays than it looked on the originally targeted hardware.
That being said, there were also a couple of years in the 2000’s where pixel-based icons were specifically designed for LCD.
We can never know what each and every pixel art designer means or intends, simply because there is no single answer.
Because of this obvious fact, I offered a common explanation among those designers I know that produced pixel art: that they simply do not consider the particulars of how pixel art was rendered on cathode ray tubes. Hence /perhaps/, a possibility is presented.
I find your counter-argument superficial and perhaps intentionally missing the point.
> don't keep up to date with the upstream software that has bug fixes
It is a very rare occurrence that my distro's packages are more than a week out of date from upstream releases
> That's precisely why software authors prefer to release as flatpaks
This implies that "software authors" do "prefer" releasing flatpaks, a plainly false statement for the vast majority of software.
> distros can't provide assurances that software will work
based on interpretation, either plainly false or a misrepresentation. They can't guarantee that software will always work because they operate in the realm of reality, but their raison d'etre is to package software together so they interoperate.
> They can't fix it if it's broken
In fact, distros regularly patch software so they're not broken before (if ever) those patches are merged upstream
> a tiny minority of users
A "tiny minority" of users prefer using their system's package manager? Implying that the vast majority would prefer all their software be packaged and flatpaks and appimages and docker containers? I don't know where you're pulling these numbers from but I bet it smell crazy in there
Sure, but the ratio is way different. I frequently cook the exact recipe the exact same way as I've done before, but I'd struggle to think of a reason to rewrite the exact same implementation of the same program.
Not to be overly cynical or patronizing, but everybody should really know better than to trust zoom, or any for-profit company really, on things like this
