> When I'm discussing technical solutions with colleagues, especially senior ones, I can point to a tech being "boring" and they'll know exactly what I mean - that choosing it will probably mean better support, smoother rollout, established patterns, etc. I don't have to redefine that criteria every single time.

I don't think that boring means any of those things. Most people here don't seem to agree with it meaning those things either.

> If an engineer fails to see the nuance then that's a communication issue and I think they'd probably be a hard person to work with regardless if this article existed.

It seems way harder to work with a group of people who all seem to know their in-group definition of a term and resent the idea of just using explicit descriptions that map.