SemVer has significant benefit for package manager world. Many argue that why don’t you just read a changelog, but that is not the point. Package manager should know whether it can update some dependency to later version safely, without some guy always manually hardcoding the suitable version. It is everywhere. In Arch Linux, Debian, Pip and Cargo. They all rely on versions which itself should describe the impact of the change. If there is no standard, then it is always risky to update. On Debian it means manually testing every package. In Arch you accept the risk. If everyone would follow version schema, then you could trust the number in most of the cases.

My original message was a bit joke which some missed, but SemVer has a place and need.

> All software is continually developed, every release contains both new features and bug fixes, which violates semver.

Combination of them is not violation. Overall impact of the change should be described with the correct increment. It does not matter how do you categorise the content of the change.