response to "the interface"

That text was pretty confusing and hard to follow. So, naturally, I have questions.

1) Isn't it going a bit far to compare Whorf's theory of linguistic relativity to that of a computer interface? Despite the parallels that this text draws (and yes, I realize that there are parallels), the fact remains that people think very differently than computers (i.e., parallel processing!). So, to say that the interface's thought process is similar to linguistic relativity is a bit of a stretch. It is not that simialr, or at least not comparable enough for what the author is trying to achieve. He even admits, "The Whorf-Sapir hypothesis is an extreme expression of the 'non-transparency of the code' idea.." Couldn't a better comparison have been drawn? Also, if a computer processes cutting and pasting the same way universally, how does that relate to linguistic relativity? Shouldn't it have some boundary that it can't see beyond, a "way of thinking that only works within the pre-ordained framework?" (That was the best way I could phrase linguistic relativity so it related).
2) When he says "new media artists" is he referring to computer programmers, or those who use computer programs to create art (such as a graphic artist)? I became extemely confused around the third paragraph on page 66 due to this; this term needs some clarification! In fact, I am so confused that the entire ending has become a blur to me because of this, no matter how many times I re-read the passage.