Usually, I enjoy articles that explain difficult concepts in math and physics, and I like to think about these concepts. But this article just rubs me the wrong

Usually, I enjoy articles that explain difficult concepts in math and physics, and I like to think about these concepts. But this article just rubs me the wrong way. It throws out some scientific jargon in the first paragraph that could be accurate, but instead they belittle it. Then they try to describe how some people would describe "space" but then argue as if everybody thought that way. I don't and felt talked down to. Worse, they argue as if "space" could have a simple, singular meaning, when obviously it can be defined on many levels, or at least looked at from many levels. Then I got to the part that says: This is the part where your brain goes, “Whaaaaat ... ?” No, my brain is not so easily confused that it expresses itself in slack-jawed mono-syllables. I get it that the article is trying to simplify some explanation, but I think it's trying too hard and failing. It makes too many assumptions about what the reader thinks and then bases its arguments on these wrong assumptions. I much preferred the discussion and links here on HN. Fwiw, I see space as the coordinate system of our universe but with no origin because it's all inertial frames of reference. It is usually thought of as a fixed 3-d Cartesian system plus time, but as I went through life and learned about relativity and Big Bang theory and universe expansion, I understand it as a much more dynamic and complex system.