I'm personally not all too bothered about misuses in the English language, which isn't particularly strange, since I'm a non-native speaker who happens to like bending the rules as much as I like the rules themselves. In Swedish, though, where multi-word nouns are compounded, we have the problem of "särskrivning" (literally "apart-writing, and an example of a compounded word), where some people are unable to tell when words should be written together. Sometimes it shifts the meaning of the sentence (often in hilarious ways), but usually it just makes you look uneducated. I've heard studies claiming that it isn't a matter of education, but rather a psychological profile which can't learn when not to separate words, so I try not to judge the people themselves. But it is annoying nevertheless!
Isn't it the other way around?
To be fair, I think "proof" always has been used in the sense of "confirmation" and not "test" in at least the latter expression (I'm not familiar with the former, but if it means what I think it means, then probably there as well). We have the very same expression in Swedish ("undantaget som bekräftar regeln"), with the sole difference that we say "confirms" instead of "proves", so unless we imported it from English after some drift in meaning, it probably hasn't drifted at all. Wiktionary seems to confirm this ("the exception that proves [the existence of] the rule", "the proof [you seek] is in [testing] the pudding"). That said, I can agree that we maybe don't reflect very much at what these expressions actually say.
For as long as there has been a word for "a person selling things", it has carried a reputation for dishonesty, and a desire from people in the trade to get away from that reputation.![]()