I've only skimmed the article, but it seems to be saying this:
> Instead of using this thing you don't understand and investing the time to understand it, why don't you use this other thing you don't understand, and invest the time to learn that instead.
Indeed, later in the article the author says:
> We can notice that 3D Rotors look a lot like Quaternions ... In fact the code/math is basically the same! The main difference is that i, j, and k get replaced by y∧z, x∧z and x∧y, but they work mostly the same way.
> Instead of using this thing you don't understand and investing the time to understand it, why don't you use this other thing you don't understand, and invest the time to learn that instead.
Indeed, later in the article the author says:
> We can notice that 3D Rotors look a lot like Quaternions ... In fact the code/math is basically the same! The main difference is that i, j, and k get replaced by y∧z, x∧z and x∧y, but they work mostly the same way.
Have I got that right?