I get that this is the New Yorker, but I think it's a stretch to say he invented fuzzy logic. MV-algebras had been around for decades when he published his paper, based on Lukasiewicz's work on real valued logic. They come up quite naturally in functional analysis.
The public certainly has the right to boycott an artist's work if they committed a morally reprehensible action without any sign of remorse. The public doesn't owe the artist anything.
But infinitesimal calculus is all about local linearity, in the analytic formulation you're taking the closest linear approximation to the function at that point. Using the dual numbers approach, there is an infinitesimal (nilpotent) region around each point which is linear.
>Keep in mind that this is C++ of course, so there's no mathematically rigorous type system; I just have a uint8_t pointer to a place in memory.
Well you basically answered your own question - you would need a language with a more sophisticated type system. You would then need an API/DSL to interact with the graphics hardware.
Wadler's paper is an excellent piece of exposition that's us at the level of an upper-year undergraduate textbook. There's nothing condescending about referring a professional to a relevant paper in their discipline, but it is troubling when a professional won't even read over a paper.
I guess, as a theoretical computer scientist myself, my first reaction is to roll my eyes. I get that these guys are trying to drum up interest with investors/funding agencies, but "My greatest fear is that my research is too successful" is still pretty grandiose. It sounds like those physicists who thought they had figured everything out in the '30s (or AI researchers before the last winter). I think it's pretty telling that Zuckerberg isn't worried despite having an empire built on AI - he's not asking anyone for money.
Conversely, mythologizing/lionizing mathematicians like that is one of the more annoying habits our field has, and I'm glad it's dying out. There are people doing fantastically innovative work that's outside of the mathematical mainstream. It took the Oxford quantum computing group years until categorical quantum mechanics taken seriously, because it was so different than what the "great mathematicians" before them had done.
Strictly speaking, you don't have the right to do that under the licensing agreement for digital media. You're perfectly within your rights to lend your friend a DVD.
There's a huge difference between lending your friend a VHS and uploading a torrent. And the idea of owning a license to a piece of intellectual property shouldn't be a hard thing to wrap one's head around if you work in software.
Companies don't have 2 hour time limits on solving their hard problems - if you run into hard algorithmic problems in your problem domain, you should just have someone with a graduate degree in CS theory. Let them work out a solution that's actually correct and they can explain why, and then the engineers can implement said algorithm.
Not really, a lot of the income inequality comes from having a large underclass stuck in a cycle of generational poverty for various reasons (often/mostly related to structural racism).
You'd be surprised at how many mathematicians are avid hikers. I've heard stories of people flying to Calgary, disappearing in the Rockies, then showing up at UBC for a conference over a month later.
I used to make fun of the idea of coding bootcamps. Then I started a PhD in computer science and realized only 30% of CS students actually engage with the theory courses that would differentiate them from boot camp grads. At this point I'd be more inclined to hire a philosophy grad from a small liberal arts school who went to a boot camp than a CS major from a big school, at least I know there will be a capacity for abstraction and decent writing skills.
I think it's ok to infer someone holds and opinion (i.e. is libertarian, Stalinist, some other annoying internet political opinion) and to check out of the conversation if they do.