As an analogy, it would be like removing the "big words" from the English language because they are not well understood, but then losing the specificity and expressiveness of having them in the first place.
In such an environment, it seems prudent to avoid sunk costs of short-lived technologies, and instead try to reduce complexity as much as possible. I understand that this is not always satisfying, and that one wishes it was different. There is joy in elaborate expressions of language.
Mathematics, finance, material science, etc. all have concepts and words in that conceptual space to define ways to solve and talk about problems. To pick one up and build upon it but have it be forgotten/not-understood has the same risk/reward as potentially choosing a short-lived technology. Sometimes choosing something complex is worth the risk, sometimes it's not.
You could always use those words, and explain the definition/meaning as a side-note, which would be more inclusive without losing the expressiveness.
It's often through explaining the need for a big word, that people realise there are smaller, better known words, that work just as well - they just don't look as 'clever'.
Another choice quote from the fine article:
> One largely unappreciated aspect of Scrum is the interchangeable nature of team members.