Yeah, one of the first is Tony Northrup which pretty much negates the comments.
Yet, Iliah Borg's comments are from one of the preminent 3rd-party raw software authors of the last 15 years, so...
Exposure as a photo term has long had NO reference to ASA or ISO speeds, and never did. It was always
Exposure= Intensity x Time, but like so many things, it's been bastardized over the years by well-meaning people who confuse things, conflate things, etc..
I never, ever, EVER heard of "the exposure triangle" until around 2009. Not sure who came with the term, but maybe it was Bryan F. Peterson? I guess it's here to stay, like other newfangled terms like selfie, duck lips, download, upload,Wi-Fi,Bluetooth, lol,lolz, and other internet-spawned words and terms.
I dunno...I kind of gave up the sense of outrage over the term Exposure Triangle a few years back, but like Ysarex, I do not approve of the term, and yet at the same time, there is some usefulness to understanding that the old formula for calculating an Exposure, Intensity (f/stop) x Time (shutter open duration) can be recalculated or rejiggered from shot to shot to shot by moving up or down the ISO scale that a digitial camera offers the user. We never had the ability to vary the ISO from shot to shot to shot with rollfilm or 135-format cameras, and many people shot ONE, single ASA or ISO film almost all the time, so ISO was seldom considered in calculationg or in setting "different" exposure values.
In the old days, the term of
equivalent exposure was used a lot, like say f/2 at 1/500 second is equivalent to f/2.8 at 1/250, which is equivalent to f/4 at 1/125, or to f/5.6 at 1/60 second.