I did and this article is somewhat balanced. However, one can ask - Why didn't the author try to figure out how the original research was done instead of puttin

I did and this article is somewhat balanced. However, one can ask - Why didn't the author try to figure out how the original research was done instead of putting in so much effort in to figuring out how Carmack used the research. Why ask the question, how impressive is Carmack for using cutting edge research in a game - Einstein VS Simpson scale, instead of asking a similar question about the inventors of the data structure. From the pov of computer history, is it more important to document Carmacks use of an algorithm or the invention of the algorithm itself? Would this article have made it to the front page if Carmacks name wasn't attached?