Who wants 3:2 content for distribution? No streaming platform wants 3:2, and they all want the footage delivered as progressive scan. Some will say things like "native frame rate", but I find that a bit misleading. There are plenty of television shows shot on film at 24fps, telecined to 30000/1001 with 2:3 introduced, then place graphic content rendered at 30p. The term "do least harm" gets used so that taking this content to 24000/1001 so the majority of the content (that shot on film is clean) while leaving graphics potentially jumpy (unless proper frame conversion with an o-flow type of conversion that nobody really wants to pay for).

Edit: also, any editor worth their salt will take the telecined content back to progressive for editing. if they then need to deliver like it's 2005 to an interlaced format, they would export the final edit to 30000/1001 with a continuous 2:3 cadence. only editors unfamiliar with proper techniques would edit the way you suggest.

Admittedly, I haven't worked as a video editor since 2011 and never edited telecined footage, but my understanding from friends is that little had changed. Specifically I have heard them complaining about it. That streaming platforms specifically want progressive scan makes plenty of sense to me of course, but conflicts with what I've heard for whatever reason.

I can’t say as I fault them as I’ve spoken with teachers that don’t know how to handle telecine content. I also know plenty of editors that have no idea the purpose of a waveform/vectorscope. Again, neither did some of those instructors.

For people never having to work with this kind of content, it makes sense. I’d equate it to modern programmers not knowing Assembly, but can write apps that perform adequately. There’s plenty of content shot on modern equipment delivered to non-broadcast platforms that will never need to know the hows/whys old timers did what they did