I read it closely the first time, thanks. If you'd like to directly address something I said, feel free.
Although, I only said two things, (1) he acknowledges the audience is self-selected (direct quote from the review), and (2) some people aren't willing to put in the work to gain that level of familiarity with the subject (directly supported by his analogy in the second paragraph).
Does that contradict anything in the review? You seem to be fixated on something else there that S4M and I aren't discussing. If you'd like to draw attention to that, again feel free.
Although, I only said two things, (1) he acknowledges the audience is self-selected (direct quote from the review), and (2) some people aren't willing to put in the work to gain that level of familiarity with the subject (directly supported by his analogy in the second paragraph).
Does that contradict anything in the review? You seem to be fixated on something else there that S4M and I aren't discussing. If you'd like to draw attention to that, again feel free.