Mis-using concepts and words doesn't bug me. What does bug me is when mis-use is coupled with an attempt for a re-definition of word or concept.
For example, the most recent concept I have come across which is erroneously named is the concept of "stacked diffs" for getting code into a mainline branch/repository.
Both a popular substack and a hot SaaS seem to not know what a "stack" actually is.
A stack can be thought of as a set of paperwork needing to be acted upon. Each peice of paper is put on top of the last, and the person acting on each peice of paper has to take a peice off the top and do something with it in order to move onto the next one. A stack, therefore has a "first in, last out" semantic.
A queue however, is like a line to get through TSA for those of you who fly in the U.S. The first person who arrives is the the first person serviced, and if people start arriving at a higher capacity than can be serviced, people need to wait. A queue therefore has a "first in, first out" semantic.
Sidebar: the Australians and British are on point when they use the word "queue" to reference the need to wait to take action after others who arrived before them. A "line" is poor word choice, but I digress.
The above Substack and SaaS articles, in the context of the outlined stack and queue semantics, are therefore wrong. And yes, I have caused my team-mates some small pain for a set of changes, all because I interpretted "stack" in accordance with the definition and semantics outlined in this post.
In part it is my fault for not reading in depth about the concepts as presented and superficially relying on "stacked diffs" as my means of interpretting the workflow. However, equally culpable are the people who coined the concept using inappropriate words and then attempted to re-define, rather than use appropriate words to match the concept (i.e. "queued diffs").
This is very much "old man yelling at clouds". The old man in me has a broader point closer to the ground than the clouds though.
Put time into naming your things what they actually are. Take out the thesaurus, use the dictionary, talk to people, attempt to bring some objectivity into the mix rather than relying on an assumption that "if we explain X enough, people will start to get it". My lived experience tells me no amount of explanation can correct a misnomer.
Carefully chosen words work far better at communicating the essecense of something rather than a word or phrase which needs explanation. You're explanation likely requires interpretation. If one thing is certain, interpretation usually begets more interpretation in order to tease out nuances, making a canonical interpretation quite difficult to achieve.
Anyway, there is probably some meta contradiction by this explanation being as long as it is, but still worth documenting in my mind.
Also, I do not mean to tear down the Substack or SaaS product. The Substack linked is fantastic, and the SaaS product look compelling, they're simply the example I've run into recently.