"Low-level" is not a perfectly well-defined technical term, and does mean (slightly) different things to different people. I feel that the article does explain

"Low-level" is not a perfectly well-defined technical term, and does mean (slightly) different things to different people. I feel that the article does explain well enough, how the author defines "low-level" for the sake of this article - and the definition being used seems just as fine as any other. And sticking with this specific definition, the conclusions of the article do seem to check out. (But I'm no expert on the subject matter, so I might be wrong about that). I feel that the "value" of the article lies in challenging certain conceptions about C. To me, it doesn't really matter if the article is (completely) right or not - the somewhat indignant response I see happening to the title of the article, and the discussion I see about what "low-level" actually means, seems to prove that some dogmatic beliefs about C are pretty deep-seated. I feel it's always worthwhile to question such dogmatic beliefs.