It always surprising to me when people on programming related forum, a discipline that in a sense is all about viewing the world trough different levels of abstractions, get defensive when exposed to the fact that real world also do have them. Be that sociology, history or even 'hard science', simplyfing the world is inherent to comprehending it.
Now, ofcourse, there are still 'good' abstractions and bad ones.
But even the best one, by definition, hides some details away.
As for the article itself - I do agree that it is mostly a fluff, and not something revolutionary.
But also nothing to criticize it for, either
As in: based on physical one, where the perceived abstractions aren't completely arbitrary solely on the discretion of programmer, but come from some observable fact.
Now, ofcourse, there are still 'good' abstractions and bad ones. But even the best one, by definition, hides some details away.
As for the article itself - I do agree that it is mostly a fluff, and not something revolutionary. But also nothing to criticize it for, either