Does “utilize” really lead to such ambiguities? Or “comprised of”? I’d be really surprised… maybe in rare cases? I haven’t read the entire linked manifesto so maybe he has some examples!

Biweekly (and probably semi-weekly) is one of those words that should be generally avoided. It's like depending on some less obvious operator precedence rule rather than parentheses. You may be technically correct, but you shouldn't do it that way because others will misunderstand you.

Yes, comprised/utilize doesn't really matter because you will know from context, but biweekly is really tricky. For example "we have biweekly sprint ceremonies on monday and friday" can be very confusing.

I only ever thought biweekly was synonymous with fortnightly

But there's nothing ambiguous about "is comprised of", so what's the problem?

Your example doesn't map, though. There is no ambiguity when I say "curry is comprised of beans and carrots". It's just a way of using the word that some native speakers have used their whole lives and other native speakers find jarring.

As a non-native English speaker, the issue that I've had with the dual meaning of "comprise" is that I was first introduced to it via the "is comprised of" usage which resulted in me equating "comprised" with "composed" or "made up" As in: "X is comprised of Y and Z" == "X is composed of Y and Z" == "X is made up of Y and Z"

Some time later, I came across the usage "X comprises Y and Z" and, based on my previous understanding that "comprise" == "compose," I took that to mean "X composes Y and Z" which, in other words, means "Y and Z are made up of X". But really, it means the other way around which is that "X is made up of Y and Z!" Only when I learned about the dual meaning of "comprise" did I correctly understand it to mean the latter.

To this day, I still have to actively juggle this arbitrary "dual-rule" in my head when I come across "comprise."