> must respect Mathematica.

Respect a closed-source software which you can't easily check and improve, for academic work? No. It's a tool, not an academic achievement.

Feynman wrote something in the sense Wolfram did invent an interesting way to implement quantum chromodynamics on a computer, so he did something contributory to science.

You are going to need a very specific citation for that because, if he did, no one working in physics today has heard of it.

It's an old reference, see e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/sep/19/ideas.g2

> is this any kind of science?

It's the "new kind of science". /s

> computation systems seem to have hit a fevered pitch in the 2010s

What do you mean?

Computer algebra systems and so on in particular. The sort of stuff Wolfram made is fortune on.

I also think "pure software" entering adulthood. The peak might last decades to come, but it's definitely not 1990 or 2010 anymore. CS still has lots of exciting things in the fire, but most of them involve more than "pure software". If that makes sense.

You're describing generally positive traits, not specific to science. Science was pushed forward by many kinds of people, many of them obnoxious, arrogant, racists, etc. You can't disqualify Wolfram as scientist by pointing to his bad personality characteristics.

From the article:

> "users are more likely from a cost perspective to build a system with one of the more affordable B660, H670, and H610 chipsets and pair that with DDR4 memory"

Yes, that is the logical extension of this agenda. Let's make sure it won't be implemented.

What does resistance to liberalism manifest about being more communal or communist? Is resistance to privatisation a "resistance to liberalism" or "communist"? I don't think so. It is nationalistic, conservative and social democratic.