I've done the same thing for the subject that I did my PhD in, and oh boy is the result weird. It is somewhat right at a high level but most of the low-level d

I've done the same thing for the subject that I did my PhD in, and oh boy is the result weird. It is somewhat right at a high level but most of the low-level details are wrong at worst or confused at best. The explanation is incredibly shallow and misses so many important aspects that matter when implementing the idea in practice. It repeatedly refers to Mark Morkovin as "Nikolai Morkovin". And it even makes up a citation as a reference, though knowing this subject deeply I recognize that it seems to have combined two different references from 1962 and 1977 into a single nonexistent reference.