The level of "I-ness" in Wolfram's writing is really an incredible outlier, at least in my experience of science writing (academic and popular).
I'm very glad that I did, and while I agree in a generally professional context it is more socially acceptable to be humble and focus on what "we" did, in what amounts to a public autobiographical memoir, I expect to read a lot of "I" telling me what they themselves did.
Besides, there are many instances where the author invokes "we" in the article starting with these:
> 14 software product releases (with our great team).
> we embarked on our Physics Project
> We announced what we’d figured out in April 2020
It is just a question of ratios. Wolfram's writing/blogging seems to assume we want the inside scoop on what it is like to be Steven Wolfram. There's nothing inherently wrong with that - plenty of people want the inside scoop on what it is like to be some entertainment celebrity, so why not a scientist-business-y person - but it is unusual for the disciplines Wolfram considers himself a part of.
Most sea glass is quite old, 60+ years, from a time when rubbish was thrown in the sea, so it's running out.
Seeding new glass would be needed to keep the hobby alive.
It's quite the 'what it sea glass' dilemma. (It also risks contaminating history for the sub-sub culture, historic collectors)
What to me is very wrong is some people seeding with fake sea glass, glass already rounded, or manufactured rounded.
To me there needs there to be a story behind sea glass seeding, like Banksy doing a (insert topical region) bottle dump, or something like that. Or an old cranky dude who lived locally but is now dead who'd throw them off this canoe.
It reminds me a little of Ann Clayborne in the Mars Trilogy, of course she'd be against all sea glass and probably beaches as we know them in general.
Also Wolfram, if you want to do something else useful please make you great website https://www.wolframalpha.com/ do napkin math, currently it's next to useless but it could be really great.