I absolutely get that (and get that not everyone does). Meanings evolve over time. Or are understood to mean different things to different people (an example I

I absolutely get that (and get that not everyone does). Meanings evolve over time. Or are understood to mean different things to different people (an example I like is the almost opposing meanings of "implies" between mathematicians and mainstream English speakers). You can even use words to mean something different from the usually-accepted meaning, so long as you're clear about your own definitions up front. But you specifically claimed that your definition of "concurrency" is the main accepted one: > "concurrency", nowadays, refers to ... > ... it appears to have stabilized This is the part I disagree with. My understanding of the word "concurrency", the Wikipedia definition that someone quoted, and the meaning in the article all align, and are all different from the meaning you gave (if I haven't misunderstood it, which admittedly is very possible). So it seems very unlikely to me that we all hold the minority understanding while yours is the mainstream.