I totally understand the pseudo-autistic disgust/anger at inaccurate statements. I imagine a lot of us programmers are very sensitive to them in a discipline where small inaccuracies can have big consequences and I myself am easily irked by this type of thing.

However, sometimes the inaccuracy stems from poor communication (or deliberate lying) on behalf of the communicator, but sometimes it comes from gaps in our own understanding or perspective.

Is this just a silly, shallow little thing, or have you fundamentally missed some key point?

I don't have the answer, but I think that's one of the fun parts of engaging with anyone's random creative output like this. There's always a small chance it could teach us something we didn't know before.

E.g. it made me re-evaluate what "drawing" really is. Especially in a digital context.

Is it a question of fidelity? At what point does altering individual elements (whether pixels on a screen or icons in a grid) in order to represent a larger picture become "drawing". i.e. if the pictures were much smaller and closer together would it feel like drawing?

Is it a question of uniformity of media? i.e. would this feel more like drawing if instead of pictures it was just coloured blocks?

I could go on but you get the point