I wanted to read this blog post but it seems uncertain about its intended audience. It goes over a whole bunch of basics like turing machines, circuits, decidable languages, NP, etc. - but too briefly for people unfamiliar with those concepts to understand, and not briefly enough to keep the attention of everyone else. Then we jump to using something called the Hadamard component-wise product which is not defined. I'm sure there's a good post here but it could use trimming in some places and expansion in others.
Didn’t read the entire post but I think the characterization of PCP’s is a bit off - some SNARK constructions and STARKs both use PCP’s - using a linear PCP vs a PCP doesn’t impact transparency or proof size, that’s more a function of the commitment scheme