I strongly disagree. He made the project on a Raspberry Pi 2 and mentioned how this affected his design in several ways:
* he used Raspbian Jessie (almost but not quite Debian Jessie) and followed instructions for setting up the necessary packages on that distribution
* he tweaked his code to perform adequately on the Pi2 and described the performance limits on that hardware
* his code uses the Raspberry Pi camera library
* he used the Pi camera's field of view in his distance calculations
It's true that you could adapt it to different hardware, a different operating system, a different distance, or a different purpose. Even if you're doing so, it's still useful to have a concrete example to work from. (For example, knowing that the Pi2's performance is marginal for what he's trying to do may help you set expectations for performance of your hardware in your situation.) Without including the specifics you object to, the article would be short, abstract, and basically useless.
* he used Raspbian Jessie (almost but not quite Debian Jessie) and followed instructions for setting up the necessary packages on that distribution
* he tweaked his code to perform adequately on the Pi2 and described the performance limits on that hardware
* his code uses the Raspberry Pi camera library
* he used the Pi camera's field of view in his distance calculations
It's true that you could adapt it to different hardware, a different operating system, a different distance, or a different purpose. Even if you're doing so, it's still useful to have a concrete example to work from. (For example, knowing that the Pi2's performance is marginal for what he's trying to do may help you set expectations for performance of your hardware in your situation.) Without including the specifics you object to, the article would be short, abstract, and basically useless.