I think the point is that “falling 1 percent” has no real information content since it’s consistent with daily volatility. You can take such random volatility and try to form a narrative around it but it’s intellectually dishonest.
This is exactly what I meant. I assumed this would be common knowledge in such a technical crowd.
We communicate every day, with a lot of different people. So the common lowest denominator is the base assumption. Assume nobody you talk too knows anything, that way basics explanation becomes part of every "chat-handshake" but the maximum number of participants can be created.