So if his article were posted on a non-technical forum should he also define what a gui is, just in case? Would it not get extremely tedious defining the basics in every article?
I think it is perfectly OK to have an intended audience and ignore an unintended audience if catering for the unintended audience dumbs your writing down for your intended audience.
It is good writing advice to not clutter your writing with needless explanations.
You have a good point that writing out all your definitions may be needless clutter. It was always a good idea in print, but now we have the web and hyperlinks.
So wouldn't linking to definitions or references make both of us happy? If you're in the target audience you can ignore them, and if you're someone more ignorant, like me, you can click the link to learn more. Seems like a good thing all around.
Technical terms are easy enough to Google. I didn't know the difference either, but that would be my first thing to try before complaining on HN.
At the company I work for, so many things I need to know are internal and so impossible to Google, and even asking somebody usually yields a less than thorough answer. I have to build a picture of how the whole thing works in my head over time. Then I become the resource everybody who is in the position I was before hounds.
Having to Google a term because the author didn't think to include a link is roughly a 0.01 on the frustration meter compared to my current job.
I get the desire for easy and flat interlinking of information. But we need to look at the people who do the work to make that happen as bearers of gifts, not sources of misery. Be the change you want to see in the world, don't just demand others do it for you. Google is your friend.
I think it is perfectly OK to have an intended audience and ignore an unintended audience if catering for the unintended audience dumbs your writing down for your intended audience.
It is good writing advice to not clutter your writing with needless explanations.