That's cool. I'm not sure what you mean about not using it as a source though, because that was also my point! If you want sources for how this should actually be done (and what actually is taught at school), then see my thread - contains actual textbook references (where there's a screenshot of a textbook, the place it's come from is in the top-left of the screenshot), actual historical documents (Lennes and Cajori), worked examples, proofs, etc. You said you believe in "strong juxtaposition", so we're kinda in agreement - I'm just pointing out that the actual rules are Terms and The Distributive Law (i.e. 2 different rules have been lumped together as one under the "strong juxtaposition" banner), neither of which is discussed anywhere in the blog (and when I, and others, have pointed this out, the OP has ignored us and downvoted our comments). I also made 5 fact check posts rebutting the false/misleading claims made in the blog - just sort the comments here by "new" and you'll see them (no prizes for guessing who downvoted them).

In other words, I wasn't saying "don't pay attention to any blog posts" (which I think is what you thought I meant?), I was saying "don't pay attention to this blog post" (for multiple reasons that I've posted in many places in here).

It's what is actually taught in high school, so there are those who remember and those who don't.

You are correct with your definition - Terms are separated by operators and joined by grouping symbols - and it's consequently not ambiguous at all (using so-called "weak juxtaposition" breaks that rule).

enforce writing math without ambiguity

It already is written without ambiguity.

were taught in third grade

This is actually taught in Year 7 - the people who only remember the 3rd Grade version of the rules are the ones getting it wrong.

There isn't ambiguity to begin with - just people who have forgotten the rules of Maths.

I wanted to compile a list of points that show as clear as humanity possible that there is no consensus here, even amongst experts

And I wrote a bunch of fact checks pointing out there is consensus amongst the actual experts - high school Maths teachers and textbook authors, the 2 groups who you completely ignored in your blog post.

It treats division like a fraction

Which is why it gives the wrong answer.

Also you shouldn't be adding a dot between the 2 and the brackets - that also changes the answer.

I’m sorry, you’re trying to blatantly lie with statistics.

No, you're lying by using a different definition of "dead". See screenshot I already posted. It comes from this very Community. It's based on how many monthly users there are, not how many posts there are. BTW the number of users has gone up since you made your previous comment - the MAUI community now on 35 users a month (only 1 of them is me), which is well on the way to being classified as "moderate" rather than just "quiet". Sorry to break it to you, but you're still wrong. As I said, take your gaslighting elsewhere.

That’s the correct answer if you follow

...the rules of Maths.

I’m not a mathematician and the answer is 9

I'm a Mathematician and the answer is 1.

I don’t agree with the notation of the American Physical Society

I clicked on the link to see what you were talking about, and the quotes which are used in the blog aren't in there at all. i.e. I searched the whole document, not just the referenced page, and, for example, the expression "multiplication before division" isn't in there at all. On the other hand the stuff about not inserting multiplication signs into terms is 100% correct, because you are breaking up one term into two, and dropping the precedence from Terms to Multiplication, which changes the answer.

It actually looks trivial as a problem

Because it actually is.

that’s why the article is so long

The article was really long because there were so many stawmen in it. Had you checked a Maths textbook or asked a Maths teacher it could've been really short, but you never did either.