> But if we’re going to be serious about it, technical jargon is really only appropriate when the speaker is 100% sure the audience 100% understands it.
I disagree. Half the reason I come here is to be exposed to new ideas or concepts. This isn't a lecture, I'll gladly take time to learn about a new concept if it seems relevant.
Fair enough, and here is an interesting thing: In a talk, if you stop to explain every technical term, you break up the flow and make it tedious for those who know the words.
But in a web article, we have hyperlinks, footnotes, asides, and other devices for allowing some readers to skim and others to dive in.
So to me, the choice for whether to use a word in an essay is different than the choice for whether to use a word in a talk at a conference, which is different than the choice for whether to use a word in a conversation where I am familiar with the participants.
Since we're on the subject of recursion, there is a problem when somebody uses a term that they only understand 90%. Somebody else reads that and understands 90%, and then they use, and then another person reads it...
And then we arrive in the current situation where people use terms like "rainbow table" or "HFT" to describe who knows what.
I disagree. Half the reason I come here is to be exposed to new ideas or concepts. This isn't a lecture, I'll gladly take time to learn about a new concept if it seems relevant.