First time I’ve seen such a hand-wringing and apologetic attempt to celebrate Vannevar Bush. Despite openly observing the hindsight-based view of consternation, this author skips any deeper consideration of contextualizing Bush to the state of the world he actually lived in.

I agree that this name should be much better known. I don’t think that should be pursued so heavily drenched in shallow, contemporary “optics”. If you must put such focus on the “critique”, at least provide some interesting and plausible counterfactuals.