Supporting tinkering and general "power user" shenanigans in your software is a genuine accessibility thing tbh. I see some people complaining about Linux users who use a non-systemd init system, X11 instead of wayland, or just generally some "non-standard" configuration. The attitude seems to be that since these users are "smart enough" to stray off the sacred defaults to suit their needs better, there's no need to consider them at all because "they can figure out how to make it work".

Obviously it's not possible to satisfy every accessibility need and use case simultaneously, but it's still harmful to categorically dismiss and actively remove support for a certain group of users just because you perceive them as "gifted nerds". Someone who extensively modifies their system to make it fit their needs may be able to solve the problems you've introduced to their usage of your software on their own, but every single application that needs this extra wrangling adds work and friction to the pile. It's kind of like replacing a wheelchair ramp with stairs because "they have it better than armless amputees, they can just bring a plank of wood with them"—yeah, TECHNICALLY they can do that, but such an arrangement is only desirable if your baseline reference is "being pelted with stones".

Also, while we're on that subject, "just use the defaults" is kind of like suggesting that wheelchair users just get someone to carry them around like a sack of potatoes all day. I don't think it's acceptable to force people to give up more autonomy/control over their lives than they absolutely have to in order to get support, especially in circumstances where a better, more equitable solution could easily be found. Perhaps I'm being somewhat extreme with my comparisons, but it's more about the similar mentalities and attitudes at play, not equating the severity of the access needs.

My overall point is that the split between "software for nerds" and "software for normal people" is due to a difference in use cases and access needs, not just a superiority complex in the minds of either group. You can build software that accommodates both groups, but you have to actually listen to them and not unilaterally dismiss one as egotistical and obstinate. And you should treat choosing not to accommodate either group similarly to choosing to ignore any other access need: necessary in order for you to better serve a specific demographic, perhaps, but certainly not a decision with zero negative consequences.