To many people (including me), this type of phrasing doesn't distract. It draws a more vivid image of what he means. I suspect the same is true for you with other turns of phrase; before the spectral signature thing, for example, he calls investor laziness "a bug that you can exploit" rather than directly saying "other investors should do this thing so you will have an advantage if you do it".
I agree it's not the kind of thing you want to do when marketing to the general public, but the target audience for an essay on how to invest in startups isn't the general public.
We will have to disagree on the point I guess. To me it's just a typical barrier that both tech people and attorneys throw up to keep out newbies and/or make it more difficult for them. And it's also somewhat (for lack of a better way to put it ) 'snotty' you could say.
And there is a wide divide between people that might invest in startups (someone's uncle or mother) vs. 'the general public' (ie 'watches family feud').
Also to your exact point I am sure there are vastly more people that would be able to understand what was meant by 'a bug that you can exploit' vs. 'spectral signatures'.
I am thinking that someone pitching investors and using what amounts to (or appears to be) an invented or recently invented way of referring to a concept would not have a good reception either.
I agree it's not the kind of thing you want to do when marketing to the general public, but the target audience for an essay on how to invest in startups isn't the general public.