> Why? And “strategic”? I thought this book was about being pragmatic (foot on the ground, present) not “strategic” (heads in the cloud, future)

It's a good summary of the article. All of the time is spent trying to frame the book in a way (non pragmatic) and the author of the article in another (pragmatic). Articles like that usually have little to no value. At most, 5% of the book has been covered in the article, and that seems to be enough to reject everything.