If you read the introduction, it points out that this is not really a substitute for Dan's underlying talk (which is linked/embedded), but merely an addendum of

If you read the introduction, it points out that this is not really a substitute for Dan's underlying talk (which is linked/embedded), but merely an addendum of notes for it. The talk is quite digestible imho. > I’ve given up on the idea of converting this talk into a post form, nor do I think it’s possible. But I wanted to jot down a few notes that are complementary to the talk. I’m going to assume that you have watched the talk itself. This is just the stuff that wasn’t coherent enough to make the cut—the loose threads I couldn’t tie together.