I appreciate your thoughtful response. My read is also that this is probably the basic thrust of the argument. The part I am trying to understand is the specific way in which they appear to be Heideggering Heidegger. Specifically, they are critiquing Heideggerian "worlding" as a kind of being-toward possibilities because it is already "grounded" (embedded?) in a superseding procedural logic. As they move into intelligibility and realizability in a computational sense, it seems like they are maybe hinting at something like "worlding the planetary" as a kind of non-anthropocentric dimensionality reduction in order to approach the planetary both on its own terms but in a workable manner for humans. I will probably reread this a few more times and see if I can understand their project better. My guess is there are not many out there with both a significant background in Heidegger and high-dimension data, so if it is challenging to me, I imagine the audience for this is small. I would be surprised if any that staked on this actually understood it. I almost staked on it because it would probably payout, but I kept with my "only stake on good content rule." I still cannot tell if this is a brilliant article or they just threw in some of the most complicated subjects and added postmosdernese to them.