So it's low latency and fast but in some contexts, firewalled?

It's like can't tell if she heard you

How is "like UDP" clearer than just saying that?

It's not clearer, it's deeper. It implies a state and creates an image in the listeners mind. You can throw it casually when explaining something and your audience now has an image in their head so you can explain the actual thing you are after.

Jargons are shortcuts to pre-agreed ideas. Just a tool.

In this case, I assure you it does not add depth, clarity, images. You're just using it as a kind of in-group joke.

I agree: it's absolutely an in-group joke. Maybe not joke, but a cutesy in-group way of expressing something.

Certainly someone who gets it will, well, get it. But in general it seems like a lot of effort in most cases to gauge whether or not the recipient will understand at the level you hope. Even the UDP example could be misunderstood by someone who is well-versed. Unreliable? A good low-level thing to build stuff on top of? These are both plausible meanings, but would convey very different things.

Better to just use clear language.

It means that you are not the intended audience because you know too much or too little about UDP.

Once I had a physicist friend freak out over my use of "exponential" to loosely explain something because he instantly began thinking about edge cases and obviously using "logarithmic" would have been more precise. We were not on the same page with the jargon, but then again I guess it requires social skills too so that you can pick where the analogy starts and ends.

My biggest pet peeve is when people use "exponential" to describe an increase defined by two points (i.e. "Americans are anticipated to consume exponentially more cookies in 2025 than they did in 2024"). Fully meaningless.

I think the udp example is a counterexample personally.

"Hmm udp, so ...unreliable and...hmm...but high throughput?...hm, good to build stuff on top of?"

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, yet I know exactly what udp is.

If you just meant "unreliable", how was this better than just saying that?

It means that we are not on the same page with that and should not be used. With jargon, audience is everything.

Also, you use it in context. The jargon becomes illustrative for the analogy, not precise definition. After all, human can't have UDP connection.

> If you just meant "unreliable", how was this better than just saying that?

It's not. Well, if the person you're talking to happens to get the intended meaning immediately, it's a cute in-joke. To me, that's the only real (dubious) benefit.

I mean, if you describe a relationship in terms of a protocol, sure, you're giving an interesting signal about the relationship, but probably not what you intended to say.