Sometimes we are bugged by some commonplace behavior, belief, or attitude, but bringing it up will come off as obnoxious and elitist. We all have those. I will tell you two of mine, in hope I am not unknowingly a snide weirdo.
1 - And/Or is redundant: Just use OR
At some point it was funny in context (like "the OP is stupid and/or crazy). I can hardly find a context that is not similar to this (arguably) ableist template.
In formal logic there is no use case for saying ‘and’ OR ‘or’, because simply OR entails AND.
If there was a valid case it should represent the logical structure of ‘AND’ OR ‘XOR’, but it is obvious that this is OR.
So, whenever we are tempted to say “and/or” it is kinda definitive that just OR should suffice.
2 - A ‘steep’ learning curve means the skill is quickly mastered : Just use ‘learning curve’
Apparently stemming from an embodied metaphor between the steepness of a hill and the difficulty of climbing it, this misnomer is annoyingly common.
I have yet to find a single source that does not yield to this erroneous, ubiquitous misconception.
Same goes for the fancier alternative ‘sharp’ learning curve.
In fact, in a diagram where the vertical axis is the skill mastery and the horizontal is time, a steep curve would mean that the task is quick or easy to master, since it reaches the higher level quickly, hence the steepness.
Since the literal alternative (‘Rust has a smooth learning curve’) will be counter-intuitive and confusing, and I bet nobody will adopt it, I suggest the following solution.
Almost every time you feel the need to reach for this phrase, YSK that probably just using ‘learning curve’ should suffice. For example ‘This language has a learning curve’. It gets the message across, without making others question your position in the graph interpretation learning curve.
What are your mundane grievances?
My minor grievance? People framing arguments specifically to complain about things. Your second example about the learning curve is perfect.
If you literally flip the axis labels it makes perfect sense. If vertical axis is time and the horizontal axis is skill, it takes exponentially longer to increase your skill mastery the more you understand it, much like many real world tasks.
Alternatively I always viewed ‘steep learning curve’ as a time skill ratio that you must meet or exceed rather than a guarantee of how your skill will develop over time.
After all, ‘steepness’ in isolation is meaningless (depends on your axis scales), but a comparitive ‘steeper than you can handle’ is more meaningful to me
See my other comment, Wikipedia says the axes are as I said.
Edit: And illustrating time as the vertical axis, it is wildly uncommon. So this ‘framing’ rebuttal is like …hysterical.