I agree that age is an issue since design decisions were made before standards were agreed upon, and it is going to be very disruptive to change those design de

I agree that age is an issue since design decisions were made before standards were agreed upon, and it is going to be very disruptive to change those design decisions. Changing keybindings is certainly going to cause pain, but even remedying terminology is problematic (e.g. window vs. frame). That's likely why cosmetic issues were popping up as potential solutions. I agree that those cosmetic changes won't modernize Emacs in a meaningful way since it is a very low bar. I also think the article is correct in pointing out that discoverability needs to be addressed. Contrast Emacs and VS Code in terms of extensions. Both editors are intended to be extended. VS Code does a good job of highlighting extensions, while the Emacs extension manager is buried. Likewise, Org seems to be rather popular yet very people will discover it independently since the user interface isn't designed for that. That said, some of the discussion about discoverability was disheartening. Telling people about features isn't really sufficient. They need to be exposed to it while they are working with the program, and that exposure has to be in a non-disruptive way. Tutorials, video or otherwise, aren't going to help because of that. There are plenty of Emacs tutorials online anyhow. If the LWN article is an accurate reflection of the discussions, I think that Emacs developers have to put a lot more thought into how to progress.