Why do some authors seem to ignore reviewer comments? For example a review might say:

This paper is acceptable if the following comments are addressed:

In section two, change &quot;this is a topy&quot; into &quot;this is a typo&quot;
Instead of writing &quot;Log&quot; for the natural logarithm, write &quot;Ln&quot;. This issue is present in sections two, three and four.
In section four, [do some serious work].


Then when the revision arrives, the authors make some attempt to address point 3 but completely do not address points 1 and 2, even though they're not controversial.
Why do some authors do this? I certainly do not want to Ctrl + F &quot;Log&quot; and list where all occurrences of it are when the authors can do that just as easily (besides, even if I do that, it often goes unfixed anyway). On the other hand, outright not fixing these issues when they've been pointed out seems pretty rude.
In my experience it seems that authors from India do this especially often, but I have no idea why this would be the case.
Personally I would do things the other way round fix 1 and 2, and not ignore 3 but maybe push back in what's asked. 

Anyway back to the question, I expect it's a either an expectation that the journal will correct spelling/formatting issues (depends on the journal) or a gamble that you wouldn't reject a paper just because of a spelling mistake.