I spent a week or so (in 2013 or so) trying to understand the notes and I believe also a youtube lecture. Novel named concepts were simply used without any intr

I spent a week or so (in 2013 or so) trying to understand the notes and I believe also a youtube lecture. Novel named concepts were simply used without any introduction, now I don't mind naming some new mathematical object with a relevant name (used to calculate amplitudes), but only after rereading the notes and rewatching the lecture did it eventually click: the diagrams depicting schematically the amplituhedron with a bunch of points ... it's a convex hull. Any sane person would introduce each new concept - and I really don't mind giving it a pet name - as long as it is defined in terms of well known objects or concepts. If one can't bring up the effort to just write: "the amplituhedron is defined as the convex hull of a set of points" how can you expect your audience to put in the effort to understand what you are trying to say? Also define what the points represent, give concrete examples, what are the coordinates of these points? etc... After multiple times finally realizing what the author was referring to with a new concept or procedure or so, and then always realizing he could have said the very same in much simpler terms I just gave up trying to decode the rest. Now we are about 6 years later, and there is a wikipedia page, but unless there is a clearly written text that starts from well known concepts, and introduces new ones in terms of known ones instead of using them without introduction and assuming the reader can read your mind... unless there is a clear text I see no point in even trying. If anyone knows if the situation has changed please point me to some clear explanations, otherwise I have no choice but file it under the "suspiciously obfuscated: either malicious or inept" category...