As it stands, they are recipe for different camps and sub-camps of programmers to talk past each other endlessly.
But, of course, nobody will actually do this, because it would expose the inherent complexity of designs advertised as simple. Many people's feelings would be hurt in the process.
It can lead to some misunderstandings, but I think those are usually given more voice than they are worth.
Also ironically given everything I just wrote, I found that an odd mark for a footnote. I instinctively look up when I see the caret. Usually for a superscript, but not seeing one my eye kept going.
You mean simplistic conversations right?
The problem with being fast and loose with terminology is that it lacks precision; and with lack of precision comes ambiguity and misinterpretation, which beats the whole point of good communication.
So, if communication is hinged on highly specific meanings of words, the odds go way up that someone will not actually hear what you think you are saying.
Instead, keep conversations high level and do not rely on the specific meanings. It requires more thought from the listeners, in some ways, but it actually relies on less pre existing knowledge from the listeners.
It is tempting to think you have narrowed your audience down to non laymen. This is often an incorrect assumption, though.
And in writing, this can go out completely. There is a place for highly specific and very precise language. It is usually best along side the non-specific language.