That's not what says this article...
This article doesn't speak about circle, but about tolerancy and psycho-rigidism.
It doesn't change the definition of a circle, but only the way we tolerate the deviancies from this definition.
A circle is round (in the classic euclidian plan with the clasic norm of distance) by formal definition, not by what we see... and if someone say "it's a circle" and it doesn't fit the formal definition, he say "It looks close to a circle". But the circle is round