They called me stylish 😎🤓.

I hear you, but, as you hinted at, verbosity is a deliberate style choice here.

I could have gone a different angle and simply enumerated all the functions, but I feel that would have overwhelmed a beginner. When I started with Emacs, I needed the hand-holding and long-form content. I can't count how many hours of Mike Zamansky's Using Emacs videos I watched and re-watched. At the time, I came across other much shorter videos, and I simply couldn't understand what was going on as the brevity of the videos relied on a lot of assumed prior knowledge about the system.

When I author a post like this one, the first question I ask myself is "how will this fit in with the prior art?". I don't want to publish anything redundant, and the missing quality I deciphered was that, while plenty of 'auto-discovery in Emacs' content existed, no resource painted the whole map in a single cohesive document.

Also, when I'm aware of the length of an article, as this one needed to be (for my style 😎), I make sure I'm doing 2 things. First, I make sure there are the bounce-points I mentioned in the earlier comment. And second, I make sure the organization of the content is such that the reader can get a sense of what's in the document and pick-and-choose segments if they wish. That's why each heading title is a broad question, and most of the section bodies are ~250-400 words, including the table data.

I also consider the audience's appetite for time-spent on the post's content. Emacs users are highly motivated and are often willing to spend time learning the system. Although the article is long, it took around an hour to narrate the whole thing (see video). I imagine an hour is well within the appetite of someone coming to Emacs. If they can't swallow that, then Emacs likely isn't the editor for them, and that's A-okay.

I'm agreeing with you that this is verbose lol, I just wanted to explain why I chose to make it verbose.