The author of this article seems quite politically driven like the mods on Wikipedia, and created it disingenuously. I feel it's an attempt to overwhelm the readers through massive amounts of text so that they are too tired to see what's being said at the beginning and end are completely unrelated.
Phd in Critical Big Data (aka Critical Race Theory for archiving) and undergrad in women studies. Had her funding cut by Trump because someone had the idea that tax-payer money shouldn't be funding "research" into how archiving has racism and oppression.
That's because the author in question is the one who had their funding cut.
Their research revolves around "Critical Data Theory" which sounds very stemmy at first, but looking deeper it has nothing to do with stem and is in the sociology department that focuses on oppression. Based on critical theory (remember critical race theory?), they study oppression in how people archive historical records.
Another professor pretending to be of a technical nature, yet in reality is just writing op-eds. No different than a NYT hit piece.
Go look at their undergrad degree and google their field. It tries everything in its power to attempt to look like a technical field, while just being another DEI course.
They actually call it "Hardware." If you look on the left of the thread linked website, you'll see a very nice "Table of contents." In this table of contents, it lists all the topics that the books covers.
HARDWARE
1 Boolean Logic 9
2 Boolean Arithmetic 31
3 Memory 45
4 Machine Language 61
5 Computer Architecture 83
6 Assembler 103
These topics are fundamental to computer science. Boolean algebra is fundamental to computer science. Just because E.E. or C.E. degree courses mention a topic, doesn't mean that topic all of a sudden becomes exclusive to them.
Also, I notice you're using the first edition. May I suggest you look at the second edition, as stated in the title?