While switching to terminology unfamiliar to me (intension vs extension of a word), I never heard anyone misinterpret "naming things being hard" as whether to u

While switching to terminology unfamiliar to me (intension vs extension of a word), I never heard anyone misinterpret "naming things being hard" as whether to use camelCase or symbols to use. It was actually about coming up with short but sufficiently expressive names that greatly improve code legibility, so certainly names that would sufficiently well represent the intent and avoid confusion. But I am not sure how it relates to "stopping association once invalid"? Is this about renaming things when the names are not suitable anymore? That's only a very special case of "naming is hard", but I do believe naming is hard even when starting from scratch (having seen many a junior engineer come up with what they thought were descriptive names, but which mostly explained how their understanding developed over time and not the synthesised understanding once they had it fully).