I think his point was that, lets say some philosophers or programmers, are having a detailed discussion. But are overheard by lay-people, maybe mid-argument, without the background, having not heard the definitions, would takeaway a lot of misunderstandings.
Or maybe his point, in a discussion like this on HN, a lot of people are jumping into the conversation in-the-middle, without catching up on the history.
Or maybe his point, in a discussion like this on HN, a lot of people are jumping into the conversation in-the-middle, without catching up on the history.