I've been lurking on the factor-talk mailing-list where this paper has been discussed, and I believe the author explained he didn't mean 'real world' in a derog

I've been lurking on the factor-talk mailing-list where this paper has been discussed, and I believe the author explained he didn't mean 'real world' in a derogatory arrogant way, but rather a more literal sense. For example, while floating-point is predominant in scientific computing, spreadsheet software and even video-game engines, in 'the real world' of physical, human-scale objects moving at moderate speeds, at unremarkable altitudes, fixed-point is often more than adequate. It's like saying that while quantum mechanics and general relativity may be useful for certain applications, in The Real World, Newton's laws of motion are all you need. It's not belittling more sophisticated solutions, it's just a kind of tactless pragmatism.