Yea sorry to say, but this is one of my signs of being poorly educated. Really don’t want to be harsh, and I’m all with you on being accurate and correct with language and expression. But language changes and always has trade offs and with accuracy and comprehension. There’s strictly no reason for a language to distinguish quantitative and qualitative amounts at this level.

And at some point, requiring compliance with rules like this, against the grain of the language’s evolution, becomes pedantry, which, I’m sorry to say, is often the signalling of being educated by those desperate to appear so.

I really hope this doesn’t come off as harsh and rude. It’s definitely useful to have this in the language, if you’re completely on top of it. But from what I’ve seen, even the most educated and smart people can trip on this because it’s just awkwardly unnecessary enough that it doesn’t really matter unless you’re keen to ensure you’re using “proper English”.

I don't agree with this one. The meaning of words change and that's true of 'Less'.

I generally don't agree with these prescriptivist positions though.

Why does this show lack of education over lack of interest in linguistics? I’ve studied linguistics, and I don’t categorize languages that way, but I could see how a pragmatist wouldn’t see value in learning Esperanto or Papiamento.