I do not disagree that I may lack sufficient background for this. It was clearly written for "those in the know," people who already share a common viewpoint and vocabulary, and only differ on minor nuance. A bit like getting a bunch of mechanics to argue about cars.
In this regard, the writing is definitely rambling and incoherent. It's one big mutual academic exercise (I am avoiding the use of a sexual term here).
Most articles written by experts are written for those "in the know." To extend your analogy, I'd much rather read a bunch of mechanics discussing the repairability of various cars than a bunch of lay people sharing anecdotal experiences. If I didn't understand the jargon and their concerns, I'd assume that they'd spent a lot more time thinking about these problems and possess insights that I don't have.
If I didn't have a software background, I'd likely find much of the more interesting articles here to be similarly dense and impenetrable, because expert discussion often assumes a certain level of expertise from the reader.
In this regard, the writing is definitely rambling and incoherent. It's one big mutual academic exercise (I am avoiding the use of a sexual term here).