> C being a low-level language is not a myth if, as normal people do, you consider assembly languages to be low-level languages.

I'd suggest you're holding that stick too tight!

> If you want to argue that there are no low-level languages when it comes to programming modern CPUs, you are free to do so, but that is a different argument.

Not if you read the whole article?

> And it is arguably not a fruitful one because then the terminology loses all meaning. Okay, you've defined assembly as a high-level language.

Again, what if the terminology isn't very important? I'd argue the distinction between high and low level languages is not an important distinction, because it is so crude. For example, C/C++/Rust have all been described as high level languages at one time or another. C people seem to be the only ones that take real offense to this.