Yes, I read the piece fully. Found it to be quite insightful, compared to other ones, I read earlier. And of course I too noticed the product placement, must add, that I found it to be quite relevant e.g. the link for the no. 1729 . Which adds few more key facts regarding the number.<p>Also his article point out a lot of interesting things. For example some new photos of Ramanujan, (I didn&#x27;t know for e.g. he was stout and short, having just seen his passport photo in earlier articles), and some very relevant observations onto his Math and style (experimental &amp; the analogy with Mathematica quite apt I thought).<p>So overall for such an elaborate article covering so many details in different domains - personal, historical &amp; mathematical. Just to see somebody harp on <i>product placement</i> does seem like a deliberate nit-pick if not disingenuous.<p>Moreover the guy wrote the original piece on his blog first. And he is fully entitled to his thoughts. And the parallels he draws actually make sense. Just put aside your prior image of him for a minute. To me, honestly, the critique looked to of pattern matching to Wolfram&#x27;s known stereotype. He is actually making that case. I would rather like to read a critique of why Wolfram is wrong, in making that comparison, than a shallow <i>product placement</i> criticism.<p><i>&gt; Personally I find these hipster-ish &#x27;I hate the hate man&#x27; type comments disingenuous</i><p>Wow. You must love recursion. I like to discuss, but please make specific points. Like I did above.