It seems like Calegari is chasing after PR and may be angry at computer scientists getting into his field.
His criticism was discussed and found incorrect by the peer review process:
https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs415...
His criticism was discussed and found incorrect by the peer review process:
https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs415...
I assure you that Calegari knows more about number theory than any of those referees, and the reasons why the paper is bad are well-explained on his blog (cf. the two links above) and by referee #1. Speaking of "peer review," look at how all the excellent mathematicians commenting on that blog agree with him!
It's hypocritical to criticize but to avoid criticism ...
Meanwhile, the blog author congratulated Mathematica for being for being good at solving continued fractions
I'd ask you where the criticism was "found to be incorrect", but I know that's absurd (aka, not even wrong), as peer review comments are not in the business of "finding criticism to be incorrect".
The paper is actually really nice work, but holy jesus someone on that author list is making a complete ass out of themselves.
Academia isn't startup world. The community is small, people have long memories, and I've rarely seen the strategy being deployed here work out. It does work sometimes, but more often it backfires. Especially for folks who aren't yet on a tenure track.