You should learn what the concepts mean instead of judging the names associated to them. We call something a Ring to avoid saying "a set with two operations which behave in a certain way [...]" every time we refer to it.

"We call something a Ring to avoid saying"

Why a "Ring" and not an "asda2+"?

From wiki: """[edit] The term "Zahlring" (number ring) was coined by David Hilbert in 1892 and published in 1897.[9] In 19th century German, the word "Ring" could mean "association", which is still used today in English in a limited sense (e.g., spy ring),[10] so if that were the etymology then it would be similar to the way "group" entered mathematics by being a non-technical word for "collection of related things". According to Harvey Cohn, Hilbert used the term for a ring that had the property of "circling directly back" to an element of itself.[11"""

the problems I had were mostly with good names. So names that are 1. already used in everyday life AND 2. really fit the concept.

These words have definitions in my head that I use often and now math uses them differently.

Like 'Menge' (german for Set) which has 'almost' the same definition in math and everyday use.

I like the physics approach more, gluons, quarks, protons, etc. these are all words that never had any definition in my life in the first place

Some people use "rig" to mean "ring wihout negatives" and "rng" to mean "ring without identity".