Thanks for that interview link. Note that it was almost 30 years after publication. I suppose a critique of "not sufficiently prescient" is supported by it, b

Thanks for that interview link. Note that it was almost 30 years after publication. I suppose a critique of "not sufficiently prescient" is supported by it, but "known at the time of publication that it got the IT wrong", which is what I think the GP was saying, isn't.