I just posted a reply to another person quoting this guideline: > In general I think that's true and agree that minor name collision commentary is uninterestin

I just posted a reply to another person quoting this guideline: > In general I think that's true and agree that minor name collision commentary is uninteresting, but in this case we're talking about 11 collisions (and counting) in tech alone, 3 of those in AI/ML and 1 of those specifically in image generation. > When it's that bad I think that the frequency of collisions for this name is an interesting topic in its own right. I'll respect your judgement on this and not push it further, but this is my thought process here.