Perhaps it's an interesting examination of co-evolution between the computer, the GUI, and the and user, but the central thesis is silly. If the inversion process you use to arrive at "anti-" statements is poorly defined, you are free to make them mean anything you wish. In this case, they were made trivially equivalent to the aforementioned evolution. There's nothing wrong with this except that the author then expects us to accept the validity of the core principle on the basis of its correct post-dictions and thereby extend credence to its pre-dictions. Nice try.
