I'm one of those who is often critical of Atwood, and the point is not that he is "wrong sometimes", but rather, that a) he tends to carelessly dismiss those things he doesn't understand, and b) this includes much of the discipline of computer science.
As Dennis Forbes so aptly put it, "Be careful diving in [to CodingHorror] headfirst, though, as the technical depth is generally so shallow you'll be hitting the bottom before you've even broken through the surface tension."
Interesting. I was about to impulse-comment on a previous comment, but then say yours.
Makes me wonder about the ways of being wrong, and who do people here think tend to be wrong in a good or valuable way?
E.g., making conjectures that at least posit novel interaction of events and ideas, or are wrong due to lack of current knowledge and over-optimistic conjecture, not because of willful ignorance or bias.
(I suppose that describes any good sci-fi writer; I'm thinking more of bloggers or essayists.)
As Dennis Forbes so aptly put it, "Be careful diving in [to CodingHorror] headfirst, though, as the technical depth is generally so shallow you'll be hitting the bottom before you've even broken through the surface tension."