You're not kidding. Consider this tripe from TFA:
"One of the first computers with built-in video output, the Apple II, simply threw a lot of CPU time at a character generator, a shift register, and a few other bits of supporting circuitry to write memory to a video output."
The Apple II wasted no CPU time on graphics. Memory access was interleaved between the CPU and the video hardware; the video hardware (a bunch of 74LSxx logic, eventually reduced to two chips in the IIe and then one chip in the IIGS) was entirely responsible for drawing the screen contents based on the contents of the frame buffers and some softswitches.
With that error right off the bat, I didn't bother continuing with the article. The author is the Howard Zinn of computer history, if this is an accurate indication of his output.
That this is coming from Hackaday is troubling. Aren't they usually better than this?