I like this post. I think it has an important overarching lesson, which is that when you're explaining something that's complicated, it's critical that the structure of the exposition itself is straightforward, that way there's only one complicated thing in the room.
One concrete takeaway for me is:
I often lead with the history of a problem in order to give it some gravitas, but maybe I'll try the advice of swapping the order up, and starting with the concrete thing of what it is we're going to accomplish.
100% the right takeaway. Even if it's just a couple of sentences of encapsulating "what I'm going to talk about", that should always come before starting into a long backstory.
I read a lot of blogs that make that mistake of starting off a post by droning on for paragraphs about the background, history, or context they want to set for the blog — but I need to know why I'm here in the first place. The title got my attention, but it still doesn't totally tell me what I'll get out of this.
A 'history of a problem' section also has to try and be concise and use really engaging language (it's hard) otherwise those background intros can feel like a chore to read and people will leave.
One concrete takeaway for me is: I often lead with the history of a problem in order to give it some gravitas, but maybe I'll try the advice of swapping the order up, and starting with the concrete thing of what it is we're going to accomplish.