Yes, and I'm even less impressed by them, than the summary that's going around.

Their terminology seems unprofessional to me. They strongly normalise on one side of their dichotomy, using words which when you leach them almost always come out aligned between positive/negative and mapper/packer. There's a whole river of implication-by-connotation going on there which I dislike. I'm sure that if their termoinology had been used to describe mappers that they are suffering from a metaphorical infectious parasitic pathology, it would have been seen as further evidence of mappers' oppression.

As far as I can tell, the paper is a piece of advocacy, which is a bad way to introduce a concept to me, because it's the same occult language used to try to persuade me to buy time share, change gas companies and give some money for a cup of tea.