Lol, my bad! hardlinked symlinks, I thought it meant "hardlinks". Also seems like nilsmeyer didn't get it either "It's just called a hard link (as opposed to a symbolic link, a link is either hard or symbolic)."
Now I understand better why you said "almost nobody use them anyway" (but to be fair, most people also say "do'nt use hardlinks ever, use symlinks" so that's why I confused)
What the hell is a hardlinked symlink? a hardlink on a symlink?
so given its a hardlink to a symlink, the only tangible benefit would be that when one of the symlinks is overwritten to point elsewhere the other one would similarly be updated to point to the new location as well, as normal hard links work. But I tested this on my system using ln -sf (which as far as I'm aware is the only way to change a symlink without deleting first) and it appears that ln will first delete then write breaking any hardlink on the symlink anyways. Thus, if by itself this functionality is not present, perhaps this issue can be safely ignored altogether since separate innodes seems to function the exact same as hardlinking them. Right? And disk size is irrelevant when talking about links.
In other words, unless I am mistaken and please correct me if I am, there is no way to 'edit' a symlink other than to delete it first then create a new one with a new innode. Borg would only make sense include this feature if there is a way to change the symlink while preserving the innode and there appears to none.
I do not know, however, if this applied to mknod/devices however. But it appears symlinks are pretty safe to ignore.