Yes, that was my point. Avoid overly simple names and also overly elegant names, unless you've actually found a simple, elegant concept.

I do have thoughts on better names. I'll write a follow up about that. But I didn't want to include it in this article because my most important point was that we need ways to curb our perfectionist tendencies, and not by hiding the rough spots. And if I had ended on that up note, it would have been the usual cheesy ending: Look! I'm so good that I always end up with a beautiful design. Which, as you say, was the opposite of the takeaway I wanted.

to go a step further, anyone using time variables based on calendar periods should know better than to think the relative time of +1 month would be simple. I'm not sure it's the fault of using a simple name in this case.

I'm sure there could have been a lot better options to drive that point home, but the author picked one that I'm sure everyone has an opinion about. That seems like an effective way to get people talking about it, but it could be divisive in bad ways.

I'm a little put off by the other saying "a clean name shuts down our thinking", so maybe I'm just responding in disgust.