The good: unlike 20 love letters to Bret's work previously upvoted on HN, this response pays it the respect of considering whether it has inherent shortcomings.
The bad: this essay cites Donna Haraway approvingly, which places it firmly in "critical theory" territory, which for some of us flips the bozo bit. Way too much grad student virtue signaling, and while I genuinely admire her decision to think through Dynamicland's PARC heritage, the OOP bits don't work.
The ugly: the author notes Dynamicland's commitment to "working closely with the Oakland community", then blows it off. Having visited Dynamicland, I can confirm that they are serious about being a particular human space. If you're going to challenge their vision (and we should IMHO), you need to grapple with their actual vision, which is of people gathered in a room working together. No "creepy animism" there.