He was an outstanding player and had an impact in the game like no other player before him. His peak performance coincided with the mass media surge of the late 60's. One nitpick is that he did not carry Brazil to 3 world cup victories, because in 1962 he played only one full match. He got injured during the second match and was sidelined until the end of the world cup. Still, winning two world cup finals is a feat only a dozen players have done--incidentally, two Italians and 10 Brazilians.
What most physicists refer to as "particle" is very different from what lay people understand by that term. If you ask physicists at the LHC about particles, they will explain what I've already mentioned, because what I'm saying is far from being revolutionary.
You can count individual quanta of any kind (photons, electrons, etc.), and you can measure their quantum collapse. But that does not mean they are localized "particles" the way Dirac liked to think about them.
I'm not a fan of the Many-Worlds Interpretation :-)
As for the electron, it is an oscillator described by a wave function, quantized, without locality. Here is an image of the wave function interpreted as a probability density:
The Quantum Mechanics interpretation is that the electron is a particle in an indeterminate location and the plot describes the probability of where the electron can be located. The Quantum Field Theory interpretation is that what we see is a field in an excited state, quantized. By looking at those plots, we can see a quantized field vibrating. If we send it through a double slit, it will behave like a wave. If instead we think about it as a single, indivisible particle, then we need to explain how it passes through two different slits at the same time. Thinking about it as a quantized oscillator disolves the paradox.
Quanta is fundamental to Quantum Field Theory so it can't be the deviding factor. I would say we are biased to think in terms of particles because our brains and senses have evolved to perceive macro objects as having a precise location and definite boundaries, thus we have a tendency to project that macro structure onto everything we want to describe.
I wouldn't say Einstein was wrong. It is a sad story that he never got to see the work of Nobel laureate Julian Schwinger on Quantum Field Theory, or the contributions of other Nobel laureates like Frank Wilczek. Switching from a particle-centric theory (like Quantum Mechanics) to a field-centric theory makes all the QM paradoxes disappear, and problems like locality, the double-slit experiment, etc., become trivial. What we have been calling particles are instead oscillators in fields. The Schrödinger equation is a wave function, but Quantum Mechanics has been using it to represent a probability distribution instead of an actual wave. Why is that? Because of the focus on particles. If everything has to be a particle, then of course we have to use a wave function as a probability distribution. But why force that view? We know how to describe fields since the days of Faraday and Maxwell, yet after Copenhagen all we want to do is to force wave-describing partial differential equations into a probabilistic model full of paradoxes.
My experience is quite different: I feel extremely productive working in the terminal, and what is described in the article as "The frozen world" is for me a virtue of the UNIX philosophy: the structure is not embedded in the data, but the programs can project a structure on it. That allows programs to be filters, and text to be the only format for exchanging information. What the article describes as "The nightmare that is composition iteration" is for me a very pleasant experience: the terminal provides a very fast feedback loop where I can iteratively examine the output of a command and refine the filters I apply. As a result, I am able to prototype commands quickly and accurately.
