I'm not sure I understand your comment, because at first glance it seems to be making a distinction between "Oh" and "O", when Bigelow's article is using "Oh" as the name/vocalization of the letter 'O' (as should be clear from the very first sentence, even if not the title).
So, assuming (still not clear from your comment) that you do understand "oh" to mean the letter 'O', as intended, still your comment is surprising, because some of your own other comments talk about O/0, and the submitted post here too starts with that very example:
> What are visually ambiguous characters?
> O / 0 - The letter O and the number 0 can look very similar
So surely the article is relevant to (at least the first example of) the post? I admit it goes much deeper into just this one example, and only a bit into other examples like 1/l/I and 2/Z or 5/S, but still it's relevant and of value as a representative example I think.
So, assuming (still not clear from your comment) that you do understand "oh" to mean the letter 'O', as intended, still your comment is surprising, because some of your own other comments talk about O/0, and the submitted post here too starts with that very example:
> What are visually ambiguous characters?
> O / 0 - The letter O and the number 0 can look very similar
So surely the article is relevant to (at least the first example of) the post? I admit it goes much deeper into just this one example, and only a bit into other examples like 1/l/I and 2/Z or 5/S, but still it's relevant and of value as a representative example I think.