There's a bunch of phrasing that makes me want to give it the stinkeye, but nothing horrible. This isn't my field, but from part 1 it looks like he's trying to

There's a bunch of phrasing that makes me want to give it the stinkeye, but nothing horrible. This isn't my field, but from part 1 it looks like he's trying to replace a Gaussian distribution by a Laplacian one and exploit some kind of underlying symmetry, but that doesn't really mesh with his "conclusions" in part 5.