Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even as someone with mathematical training, my eyes started skipping lines a few paragraphs in. This content is good, for sure, but you have to be in the right headspace to follow along. Quanta's material is serving a different need. Quanta tells you about it. This article tells you it. Both are valuable!
This draws you into the math instead of running away from it. I feel like a reasonably smart (and motivated) person with no knowledge of group theory or number theory could follow along here and understand the material. I feel like the people who write Quanta articles want me to remain ignorant.
I claim that this diversity of math writing on a single topic is fantastic. I love Baby Rudin, and found Abbott and even Carothers to be so chatty as to be confusing, where others find both of those texts to be a breath of fresh air. Later I came to appreciate Carothers more, and by extension the higher level texts by Bryant and Sawyer.
If you don't like a particular piece of math writing, just consider that there might be others out there who benefit from it. For instance, my partner who has intense math anxiety and barely passed high school algebra can often follow them, and I've found them nice for getting a quick description of a field in math I know nothing about and the problems and methods of that field.
Anyway to be clear, this isn't to say you shouldn't be critical, just that we need more math writing, not less, and if something isn't landing for you, maybe it's landing for others.