intelligible

It is an encoding that makes things less intelligible and the luxury of choosing a less intelligible form is a mark of social status, e.g.

I wonder what percentage of the library is actually an intelligible book?

Sass is more more intelligible than regular CSS in many circumstances unless you're trying write everything as programmatically as possible.

It really is striking how products like Docker, even while delivering incredible value, continuously fail to message themselves in an intelligible way.

But it says that Hindi and Urdu are mutually intelligible, which is misleading.

So I took that as some evidence that not all English dialects are mutually intelligible.

That's an equally intelligible description of the problem as the original.

I'm sure you had a point, but you didn't make it in an intelligible way.

I guess they do some more modeling to make the sound more intelligible, though.

Definitely not mutually intelligible to my California-trained ears.

There is a long (albeit minority) tradition of thinking this way in computing, one that values small, intelligible systems as the best way for humans to work with computers.

It's also somewhat more intelligible than NoScript.

The exact math would depend on the definition of "intelligible" used and how big of an "intelligible" fragment you're looking for.

In Croatia, it's "Croatian" and it is also a separate language locally despite being almost entirely mutually intelligible with speakers of the Serbian form.

I guess for purposes of calculation an "intelligible" book could be one that is completely composed of valid words in its target language; that would at least put an upper bound.

Because the client nonce was explicitly added so we don't sign intelligible data during proof of possession, I don't see why the "check" protocol, which is a binding statement, would have a similar requirement.