I suppose everybody interprets this comment differently. My reading of it is one of extreme ignorance of what computer science is. Computer science is part appl

I suppose everybody interprets this comment differently. My reading of it is one of extreme ignorance of what computer science is. Computer science is part applied math, and part pure math. It is most certainly not in any way a liberal art. Further, it is crucial to most of Jobs own technologies in a very deep way. Indeed it is crucial to all of computing. Learning to program teaches you to think, but doing math and applying math does not? This is not a comment to be proud of. Every applied science crucially depends on mathematics in some form. Thus, I take this as ignorance on Jobs part. It fits right in line with Jobs feeling justified in taking the entire credit for technologies that he mostly copied from academia. Yes, he and Apple modified some of them, especially the early GUI days. But more recently they lifted others like Siri verbatim. But Jobs has never acknowledge the huge shoulders he stood on. In my opinion, Jobs' primary skill was art. Not technical innovation, not science. One could argue he recognized good engineering I suppose, but software architecture is also arguably more art than science in that there are few objective measures of it that people agree on.