What, exactly, is misleading? The title of the blogpost is "Sorting Algorithms with CUDA" and I didn't get the feeling that the author is touting their "Bottom-up iterative merge sort" is the fastest possible way of sorting with CUDA. There is even a "Future Work" section at the end, implying even the author know it can be done better.
I think the faux-academic style is throwing people off.
If author is taking a truly academic perspective, then a section should be included with background on state of the art, best known performance, etc.
If this is just a blog post (which is more likely) with less rigor, then the style could reflect that better. For instance, calling it an "introduction" or "exercise".
How many academic papers start with "I went for a NVIDIA recruiting event some days ago, that was a great event and it motivated me to try to rewrite the sorting algorithms using CUDA."
