I've seen numerous examples of "essentially constant time" on slide decks, presentations and talks. But I'd argue even if you did do this after a prior disclaim

I've seen numerous examples of "essentially constant time" on slide decks, presentations and talks. But I'd argue even if you did do this after a prior disclaimer, it's still somewhat misleading. It's adopting language that sounds very similar and creating greater confusion. > This is not a case of vague wording being used, it's a case of exact wording being used and additional context being provided. And yet the confusion persists. And I can point to enthusiastic jr. engineers who don't fully grasp the difference, and that were somewhat surprised when I corrected them (the equivalence of log32 and log2 should be enough but...) Similar stories abound from multiple actors in the world of Scala. Another great example is the (now infamous) "non-blocking backpressure." Same principle, taking well-understood industry terms (some of which even have precise definitions lifted from more rigorous disciplines) and wrangling them into something almost unrecognizable.