When he says "Do we imagine that such progress is achieved through the kind of Luddite thinking that leads people to value "hackability" over never-before-achie

When he says "Do we imagine that such progress is achieved through the kind of Luddite thinking that leads people to value "hackability" over never-before-achieved levels of precision and portability?" he pretty much proves that he does not understand either the word Luddite or it's origins. Essentially Ned Ludd was rebelling over looms that had been 'hacked' with the technology of the day. A complete contradiction to what the author said.