This was very noticeable when looking at math related topics. On the beginner side you have the (very nice!) videos of 3b1b or (often not so nice) blogposts on learning sites, on topics that you already heard in university. And on the expert side you have papers or proofs on very specialized topics, that are unreadable when you just start out.
Where do you find tutorials that are in the middle ground? Is there even such a thing? Or is the possible audience just so small that there are no nicely curated or visualized tutorials on topics on an intermediate level?
This is just my theory, but I'll share it in case it can be helpful.
One of the patterns that starts to emerge in intermediate work, generally speaking, is personalization. The instructor starts paying a bit more attention to you and how you're coming along, and less to teaching everyone the fundamentals, for example.
Accordingly, some of the biggest problems in providing intermediate-level objective instruction come when the instruction is not subjective enough, and tends to seem either too basic or too advanced to the student. I had this problem when I was teaching college classes, and it could be a really frustrating one.
As a personal example of how I work around this: When I study math at an intermediate level, I have to start by sorting by topics and practices that work best for me, topics where I'd probably be a little ahead of the curve in a typical intermediate class.
I also have to sort by methods and practices that work best for me: I have a ranked list of activities that seem to lead me further, faster, as I study math.
I also believe there's an equivalent to the tutorial-search, at this level: Asking a specific question and following up with more questions. Essentially this helps you write your own tutorial, which is also a skill that forms up more tightly in advanced work.
Going into a little more detail, I suck at highly theoretical math and can't read so many general-math Wikipedia formulas even. But I know how to trade and find it interesting. So I study technical indicators and write my own software to apply them. When I run into a problem, I reach out to experts or advanced practitioners and ask specific questions. Then I learn new things as I read answers and follow up with questions.
If I'm writing code to apply the math, I tend to wrap this up by at least writing the new pseudocode that is forming in my head.
To me, this is intermediate in lots of little ways, and I can tell by reflecting on my own teaching experiences.
Eventually I'll start to give back--for example let's say I start to publish my own technical indicators that I find interesting, maybe even with code examples. That's getting into advanced work.
This is just one general model but I hope it can be helpful to you. Good luck.
Maybe adjust your expectations? IMO, a tutorial, because of its handholding nature, targets beginners. If you consider yourself an intermediate, you don't need tutorials. Your options are a combination of struggling though material for experts, re-reviewing material for beginners, and asking questions.
Stack Overflow's question-and-answer format often means that the highest-ranked answer is a tutorial that targets intermediates. The answers are terse enough that they assume you have general knowledge of the subject, but also assume you aren't an expert.
One more thing to realize: In software engineering, you're always a beginner. You're always working with some kind of new something, either developing something new, or working in a new stack, or working with a new API, ect. Get used to being a beginner, intermediate, and expert all at the same time.