[enkiv2]

I agree that the article was a little thin (to be honest, it's shorter than most articles I bother to read, let alone repost) & that it's misleading in suggesting that incompleteness is difficult to understand.

That said, I'm very glad that the idea is finally popping up in the popular press: incompleteness, like special relativity & quantum superposition, is about a hundred years old & many people still don't have sufficient familiarity with it to understand the way that the philosophy of the field in appeared in was impacted. Where relativity meant that time was mutable & superposition meant that randomness was inescapable (in other words, breaking the "Newton's Calculator" model of physics), incompleteness means that self-description breeds undecidability & that the relatively common idea of an ultimate descriptive language is inherently doomed. These are important facts from a philosophical standpoint, even if they rarely directly interact with things that 'normal' people are trying to do (although 'normal' people bump up indirectly against relativity & incompleteness daily, in the form of (for instance) GPS devices).