Even if the ML engineers know about the wireless protocol (and I doubt that many do), the scientists/researchers who develop these models probably don't. They are completely different domain. The lead author on this paper is basically a neuroscientist; some of the other are technically computer scientists, but probably have little hands-on experience with networking beyond whatever they did in undergrad.

Anyone with some starch to their collar now knows that lora is both a wireless technology and an ANN fine tuning method.

It's virtually impossible to be sent for a loop if you're engaging critically. The two domains solve very different problems and have no overlapping concepts. The way we talk about each topic is very distinct.

at some point we are going to run out of easily pronounceable abbreviations that are unique. Perhaps that point is actually in the past and we should just acknowledge it and move on. Although I guess it could have been Lorall - oops, that's a character in World of Warcraft.

As should have the IoT people to not conflict with the decades old LORA name used for Level of Repair Analysis.