Not sure if this is a bug or if it’s a design update
They were changed last August
The idea is that our target audience isn't C programmers.
I freely acknowledge that our audience isn't APL programmers either. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.
Brilliant! Thank you, Brian 
I think it's from Churchill or someone like that.
According to Google, it’s Ralph Waldo Emerson.
Not much like Churchill, then, I guess. :~)
So either a:
Symbols get removed from the APL library
B: these get their symbols back (preferred)
There are always going to be some inconsistencies with libraries and blocks and stuff. I, personally, think that the bitwise operators are a lot more easy to understand now.
You missed the point of the "foolish consistency" quotation.
I think I can even justify treating those libraries differently. Someone who uses the bitwise library is trying to get work done, and so our goal in naming the blocks is to convey their meaning even to someone who isn't a C programmer.
By contrast, there's a good possibility that someone who uses the APL library wants to learn about APL, and so it's important for the block names to include the symbols used in the APL manuals and textbooks. Even so, the block names aren't just the APL symbols. They have three parts: a descriptive name comprehensible to a Snap! user, the APL symbol, and a descriptive name comprehensible to an APL user. This policy has the great disadvantage of making the blocks super wide, quite the opposite of what an actual APL program looks like. But it makes the blocks usable both for programming purposes and for pedagogic purposes.
I now see the point there
This block name seems to be the perfect example of this paradigm.
I feel like it could symbols, so like instead of “right” it would just be a $rightArrow and shorten “butwise” to just “bit”
Because the blocks are just way too large
To me it feels like they where writing an essay and needed to pad out the word count
:~) The letter count. The word count is the same in your versions.
Your proposals for shortening them are reasonable. I'm a little nervous about "bit" instead of "bitwise" because that sounds like the name of a data type consisting of one bit, i.e., a Boolean operation, the opposite of what's meant. "Bits" in the plural would be better, but the wording would have to be rearranged, e.g., to OR BITS OF () () or perhaps OR BITS OF () 
︎
︎.