> More importantly, I would like to point out that string diagrams are not standard. They're standard in category theory, which is what the series is about. >

> More importantly, I would like to point out that string diagrams are not standard. They're standard in category theory, which is what the series is about. > precisely because it is not standard and not needed for most (any?) useful mathematical work. Uh oh, you better let everyone using it know, especially all those pesky type theorists. > When I read articles by category theory boosters, I get the sense (rightly or wrongly) that they think the world revolves around them and they have stumbled onto some deep and fundamental truths. This is not the case. It's a niche of a niche. I think this says more about you than the series. You seem upset that a category theorist is presenting their work in the language of category theory and that people are interested in it. Nobody mentioned anything about utility, depth, fundamentality or generality. In fact, he refers to some of his work as "hard and useless." [1] > There has been intense political pressure on the academy to stop working on hard and useless things over the last 30 years or so. The result is a new generation of academics who do easy and useful things, things that impact the economy in the 5-10 year scale, and which bring in research funding. This is by design, because research funding is closely tied to academic career progression. Unfortunately, it’s not very hard to disguise easy and useless things as easy and useful. This has resulted in a totally out-of-control epidemic of easy and useless research. A symptom of this disease is the ever expanding use of increasingly ridiculous buzzwords. Easy and useless never leads to hard and useful. I’d much rather the government invest my tax money in the hard and useless. [1]. https://graphicallinearalgebra.net/2015/04/30/spoilers-adding-part-2-and-zero/ https://graphicallinearalgebra.net/2015/04/30/spoilers-addin...