I claim that what we call "an abstraction" in software is something else. E. g. while you state that "an abstraction may remain the same abstraction even if you alter its implementation", I insist that the right verb here is "must" and not "may". There is no such thing as "leaky abstraction", "good abstraction", or "an abstraction that only works on x86_64" anywhere else other than in software engineering.

And I'm being nitpicky because the word "abstraction" brings in false connotations. It implies that you can reason about things on different levels as if they were equivalent. But in software, they never are. And I agree with the author in that this pretence of equivalency just doesn't hold and adding more and more abstractions on top of each other is not the way to go if you want to understand how things work and how to make them work predictably and efficiently.

I don't see how my claim diminishes the importance of naming.