I'm not sure who the "you" in the article is, but I find both the article and the summary void of any attempts to explain anything intuitively, extremely math-dense, and essentially incomprehensible.
by far this is the least math-dense and most intuitive explanation of these ideas that I have seen committed to print anywhere. consider that you might need to do the work of developing improved personal understanding, rather than complaining the expositor hasn't done the work of getting to the conceptual essence. sometimes the conceptual essence is mathematical, cannot be further compressed, and that's okay. I struggle to see how this blog post could possibly be "simplified" beyond defining a few terms more explicitly.
Precisely, the mathematical insight is the essence of the post here, you can't simplify it or change it to some other form without destroying the point and the beauty of the insight. And yes, the math here is trivial. The hubris, anti-intellectualism, and lack of curiosity of these complaints, on HN of all places, is really shocking.
Love how the comment below yours states it's one of the most well written blog posts they've read in a while. Classic HN, full of highly opinionated folks.