Claims that state something like "I understand X" and have no other text are lame. Why not explain it, or at last link it, instead of feeling smug?

Go back and comment on the claim asking for explanation if you need it. I would consider it rude to spout off unless someone asked me to.

The claims serve a useful purpose which is to establish how many people feel that they do, or not. understand something.

When a person makes a series of such claims, I feel justified in becoming annoyed at the pattern. All the more so when X is just a term; basically, the statement is just "I'm familiar with term X" and asking who else is in your club. It reads too much to me like using Jyte to exclude; using it to educate seems better to me.

With the enormous power of the internet though, pretty much anyone who wants to can learn something thorougly enough to understand it.

That's how I use those claims - I think do I understand that? And if I don't I would usually start reading about it. It's a nice way of knowing what I don't know, so that I know what I should learn.

Sometimes, it's also useful in discussion, if you've given the impression that you don't understand something, but actually you do, you might want to point out that you do actually know the difference between PRC and ROC for example.

Also, I feel as if claims of the type "<x> understands <y>" (rather than "I understand <y>") are an essential part of what jyte is, even if they don't add much to the discussion.