As someone who has seen this effect before, but was unclear how it was done, this article is very "and now draw the rest of the owl". They define a basic equation, it's about what I expected, but the end shader code doesn't use it in that form, and I found it pretty difficult to parse, I can't say I'm much better off in the end.
What I usually do in 2026 is copy the code and article and have Claude clarify the unclear parts for me. then is ok.
The article sums up quite well which principles are at play here. The fun part it's suggesting (without words), is either to pick it apart and see what each part does, play around with the constants in there, or start from scratch and roll your own... (all with the Shadertoy linked below the article maybe?)
I would say most interesting texts (articles, books, school, ...) should leave stuff up to the reader's mind to figure out. That's how someone really learns. Versus pre-baked stuff like television etc.
If something does not resonate at first that's pretty normal. You could still take it apart and start investigating words or concepts that ring no bell, for example: waves, interference, demoscene, owls, Feynman.
Enjoy! ;)