most scientific calculators are designed to use it

They don't. They use The Distributive Law and Terms.

why @wischi went through the effort of writing a rather detailed blog on this is because the order of operations most people are taught doesn’t cover juxtaposition.

The order of operations rules do cover it. Did you not notice that the OP never referenced a single Maths textbook? Because, had that been done, the whole house of cards would've fallen down. See my Fact Check posts doing exactly that.

The order of operations is not part of a holy text that must be blindly followed

No, it's in Maths textbooks, and must be... blindly followed. :-)

If these numbers had units

...it wouldn't matter at all. The order of operations comes from the very definitions of the operators themselves. e.g. 2x3 is shorthand for 2+2+2.

It's not taught 2 different ways. It's taught the same around the world (the mnemonics are different but the rules are the same), there's just 2 types of people - those who remember the rules and those who don't. You'll notice students never get these questions wrong, only adults who've forgotten the rules.

you’re a slow reader

I see you like to use made-up "facts", just like the blog does. Is that the best you can come up with after repeatedly insisting I should read it? (which yes, would've been a huge waste of time, exactly as I said, had I not turned it into a positive use of time by writing a fact check about it. Alleged fake news turns out to be... fake - who would've thought? Oh that's right, me :-) )

I’ll read your comment when you read the article

So, did you read it now? Or are you a "slow reader" and I need to wait longer for your responses?

I believe you meant x(y+z)=xy+xz.

Actually it should be x(y+z)=(xy+xz), as that's exactly where a lot of people go wrong. They go from 6/2(1+2) to 6/2x3, instead of to 6/(2x3), and thus end up with the wrong answer (cos that flipped the 3 from being in the denominator to being in the numerator. i.e. instead of dividing by 3 they are now multiplying by 3, all because they removed brackets prematurely).

That'd be good, but what I've found so far here is a whole bunch of people who don't like being told the actual facts of the matter! 😂

only refers to implicit multiplication involving special expressions(?) like pi, e, sqrt or log, and nothing about “regular” implicit multiplication like 2(1+3)

That was a very astute observation you made there! The fact is, for the very reason you stated, there is in fact no such thing as "implicit multiplication" - it is a term which has been made up by people who have forgotten Terms (the first thing you mentioned) and The Distributive Law (the second thing you mentioned). As you've noted., these are 2 different rules, and lumping them together as one brings exactly the disastrous results you might expect from lumping different 2 rules together as one...

See here for explanation of all the various rules, including textbook references and proofs.

Read the damn article.

Read it. Was even worse than I was expecting! Did you not notice that a blog about the alleged ambiguity in order of operations actually disobeyed order of operations in a deliberately ambiguous example? I wrote 5 fact check posts about it starting here - you're welcome.

Let me know if you ever decide to read the article instead of arguing against an imagined opponent

Read it, wasn't imagined. In fact it was even worse than I thought it would be! Did you not notice about how a blog about the alleged ambiguity in order of operations actually disobeyed order of operations in a deliberately ambiguous example? I wrote 5 Fact check posts, starting here - you're welcome.

I've narrowed this down to using NavigationPage.SetTitleView and have created issue 21037, which has an 806issue branch in the repro repo.

I've narrowed this down to using NavigationPage.SetTitleView and have created issue 21037, which has an 806issue branch in the repro repo.