In my understanding Einstein was right to come up with the arguments with thought experiments time and again. I can imagine it been annoying to Bohr, because I find Bohr to be an egoist. This is probably the result of his family upper middle class, upper class family background and the privileges it brought. So, yeah it may have been difficult for him to accept defeat. I conclude this from the fact, because he was unwilling to define the realm of Classical and Quantum mechanics. He smoothly transitioned and transgressed between the two to suit his argument. On the contrary, Einstein after failing with thought experiments to convince, took it on his own to work towards his Unified field theory. This is the real characteristic of a true scientist. Go probe it, develop it and create it yourself. A genius in the true sense of it. In defence of Bohr, he was working with limited knowledge in a field which had suddenly burst forth a pandora of opportunities. This is interesting to consider because it pushes people to extreme envy, stress, etc. but Bohr had the dignity to maintain his calm and continue his discussions with Einstein - though irritated, but resolute - to prove his point. Were it not for him, Einstein would not have been challenged to take us normal humans to the - dare I say - edge of universe. It is also interesting to observe, how the other greats of that era sided with the giants, but sad to see how even intellectuals like Lennard, and the other could go to extreme and disrepute science because of Einstein’s religion/race. This may be the saddest aspect of it, and is the consequence of developing a bias and prejudice. Simultaneously the bias and prejudice between Heisenberg and Schrodinger is funny to see. Their exchange is also a great representation of how Math is ignored or not respected as it should in Europe. I for the love of science, cannot understand how can scientists not have an aptitude or appetite for maths. Its beyond me. While Einstein’s goal of an observer independent universe is what I aim for myself, this should also be the goal of AI for society. The observer independence to an event measurement is foremost to any system. Another significant take from the book is how the papers did not conclude with a closed argument, but kept it open for discussion and growth. Currently, science is suffering from the egos of researchers who are willing to put forth their conclusions as final statements. This is where and how society reaches a static state of development which is never going to be good. The current talk about global warming without considering he long term behaviour of the universe is akin to Bohr using the new data with statistical probabilities to suit his interpretation without considering the boundary between classical and quantum mechanics. Its an excellent book to read, and highly recommended for people with any level of interest in quantum physics.