How... how is this not obviously the absolute very most useful information?

When I encounter a bug in a dependency of mine. Before I worry about submitting a PR, the very first thing I do is grab my version number and check the commit logs for fixes since my version number.

If I'm trying to decide whether I should bother upgrading, I scan the log for new features.

It's the title, not the details. The commit message body should contain MUCH more detail than the title.

If you don't like it because it looks ugly. Sure, that's subjective. And actually, I agree. Because it's standardized though, Git interfaces could even be configured to trim this off and provide different visual styles for the different kinds of commits. The types could be used as search filters too etc.

Now, I get people don't like the look of them. Neither did I when I first saw them. Then I started using them and found them useful.

It's fine, people have different preferences, it's just a convention and it's not going to work for every project. The article itself just doesn't seem to hold any water.

If one is writing trailers and custom formatters, then probably the information that the formatter uses should be even more structured that sticking it in the subject line.

This is what a changelog is for