> I don't know what you are complaining about.

Indeed, and the rest of your reply goes on to confirm this, with the additional quite needless, but amusing, psychological analysis. I'm sorry if I worded it poorly in my first reply, although I can't see that it's particularly ambiguous.

The issue is quite orthogonal to him personally and his achievements, for which I have the utmost respect. I am fascinated by the early days of space exploration and am as impressed by this work as I was when I first read about it a few years ago.

The issue is with the journalism, written by the journalists, which attempts to sensationalise the achievements (which can stand on their own two feet without it) by making comparisons with famous mathematicians that are not valid comparisons, as Paul Lutus explains in his first post. It's just apples and oranges, and will at best be lost on the lay reader and at worst confuse the lay reader who looks into the three body problem further. Hence my point that it is unhelpful to the public understanding of science.