Medicine is even worse for this.

I was once diagnosed with "non-specific gingival inflammation" which apparently meant "You have a mild gum infection and we have no idea why."

That's appropriate for a diagnosis, which is the term that they'd pass on to the next doctor who wants to peek into your mouth. "Hey, I looked at TheOtherHobbes, and here's where we're at:

- We haven't yet figured out what's causing it, but - [the official name for the body part involved], - is notably red and puffy, which is probably caused by an infection, - but there could be any number of other root causes, we haven't run sufficient tests to find the exact cause, and we're not worried enough to recommend a million expensive and invasive tests for what's 99% likely to be a common, simple infection."

Jargon is very information dense, and everyone in every field uses it to convey a lot of information quickly. Take a phrase that would be very clear to any reader here: "there's too much RF from my Wi-Fi router, so I switched from a Bluetooth mouse to USB". Suppose this is how I fixed my friend's mouse problems, and he got the gist of what was happening but didn't really understand the details. His girlfriend comes over and asks why he suddenly has a wired mouse. He hands her a piece of paper where I've written exactly the sentence above, she reads it, says "oh, weird. Makes sense though."

Now, my friend may not understand every word of what I wrote. Even "mouse" is jargon, albeit something that's been around forever so it's widely understood. However, his technical girlfriend would immediately understand what the actual problem was and why that was a good solution to it. The diagnosis wasn't for him specifically. The diagnosis was for the next technical person to understand where we're at with the problem.

Oh yes, this is a good one to know. "Non-specific" = "we have no clue wtf is going on".

My kid once had "toddler's diarrhea", aka we don't know why she's going a lot, but she is.

It can be especially challenging to be both precise and comprehensible to people outside the field. Even if you can manage it, you really need to "read the room" to decide whether it's worthwhile.

I've always found it to be a rewarding challenge. Jargon is the lazy way out; anyone can invent complex and smart-sounding labels for a concept[0]. But what's the point? It's much more fun to communicate something accurately, precisely (there is a difference!), and in the way the audience can understand.

(I've found this often requires constructing a sequence of explanation - almost a kind of a narrative, that starts with an answer to the question "what are we trying to do and why do we care about it?", and is followed by introducing constraints, until it becomes obvious what the concept is, what its moving parts are, and why we actually care about it. But then again, a good analogy can cut through all that. In the article, "just like TV", that was perfect.)

--

[0] - I mean, an average human is an adequate stochastic generator of surjections from words to concepts, under adequacy criterion defined as the capacity of ingroup/outgroup border delineation.

Jargon may serve the purpose of a "gatekeeper" in conversation, signaling who is allowed into certain forms of conversation. Jargon may serve this function by dictating to which direction or depth a conversation about or within the context of a certain field or profession will go.[25] For example, a conversation between two professionals in which one person has little previous interaction or knowledge of the other person could go one of at least two possible ways. One of the professionals (who the other professional does not know) does not use, or does not correctly use the jargon of their respective field, and is little regarded or remembered beyond small talk or fairly insignificant in this conversation. Or, if the person does use particular jargon (showing their knowledge in the field to be legitimate, educated, or of particular significance) the other professional then opens the conversation up in an in-depth or professional manner.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jargon

Another problem is when people explicitly try to do a simplified explanation, most seem to be unable to extract the essential concepts from all the implementation details and end up writing massive walls of text in which every technical term is explained further using everyday analogies.

You see this a lot on reddit's /r/explainlikeimfive, but the best example I've seen is the answers here: https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/55343/how-to-ex... - with the top-voted XKCD cartoon as a counterexample.