Absolutely, and the work I do is solving problems to further business objectives. As such, we talk about business things. Lists, sets, and maps are not normally business-related terms. Indeed, programming is the tool we most often use to implement the solutions to the particular problems we face, but it is not the work any more than a hammer is the work.

> Respectfully, my assumption is that you also don't work in technology, or always work alone.

I do not work alone, but I use the tools alone, yes. I expect most do. I don't see much evidence that pair/mob programming has ever caught on in a significant way.

> Data structures are unrelated to brackets, so I assume this is hyperbole.

They are indeed related as some programming languages use [] syntax to denote use of the data structure mentioned. If the people involved in the conversation are familiar with those languages, they can infer what is meant through the process of communication.

> Someone claiming to have 10+ years of developer experience should know the word "list". Full stop.

You're going off the rails here. A developer of 10+ years will know the word "list". That is not in question. The topic of conversation is how they will not necessarily have it at the tip of their tongue, because why would they? Unless you are caught in the 10 years of experience doing the same thing over and over trap, leaving you forever a beginner, it is not something people normally talk about.

Again, what would seasoned developers need to talk about lists, sets, and maps for? They should know them inside and out, backwards and forwards. "Hey colleague, I need a list here, but I forgot how to do it. Can you help?" never comes up. "Good news everyone, I discovered this great new thing... It is called a list!" – not going to happen. If we were talking about esoteric data structures, that's a little more conceivable, but we are talking about the ones you use essentially every time you write some code.