An interesting article, but I would say this is one that is better showcased to, say, a primary school audience rather than the HN crowd perhaps? The writing style and concepts were a little too simplistic and lacked the depth I would expect from the publications I normally see linked on here.
Note: But even for a younger audience, I would do some serious editing of the text (e.g. misuse of "concurred" instead of "conquered" etc.) before publication.
I noticed the simplistic language used too. But I found it refreshing as the author is able to cite more external material while keeping the reader's (or at least, my) attention to the core message. No distracting jargon or flowery language were employed. But it could also be how my simple mind functions too..
Note: But even for a younger audience, I would do some serious editing of the text (e.g. misuse of "concurred" instead of "conquered" etc.) before publication.