Im just an anonymous person on the internet but even I can see that this can really hurt your reputation. That start of the article painting you by using a random game you had with Zuckerberg is very low. I think the previous commentor's suggestion to talk to a professional has merit.
They are effectively accusing you of destroying a multi-million company through libel... If this happened in court you'd be getting a lawyer, no? Maybe i'm being dramatic and the best way to go through this is just to ignore it and let it calm out but it's probably not a bad idea to talk to someone with a cool head and experience.
My pet philosophy is that math is real because the objects have persistent effects, like with the "if a tree falls in the forest..." riddle. Something that isn't real would be a story, because things do not have effects in it.
If a function is one-to-one, it has a (right? left? keep forgetting which one)-inverse. But if Moshe the imaginary forgot the milk, his wife may or may not shout at him, whichever way the story teller decides to take the story... So a function being one-to-one is real, but Moshe the imaginary forgetting the milk isn't.
I like this view when I'm being befuddled by a result, especially some ad absurdum argument. I tell myself: this thing is true, so if it wasn't we'd just need to look hard enough to find somewhere where two effects clash.
Well most of your examples are about failure to act based on reasoning rather than failure to reason, except the mathematics one which is unfair as research mathematics is a very hard task - either subtle errors, reasoning in new fields, or extremely long chains of reasoning.
I mean, it's a technical piece of code (ETH, that is), and every new piece gets a new name. It's not a more complicated terminology than you'd get for compilers or protocols - TCP wikipedia has "TCP provides reliable, ordered, and error-checked delivery of a stream of octets " which has 6 (or 5, depending how you'd count it), technical terms. They're not very abstract, sure, but it's just TCP, and we think that's completely normal.
A logic class will suddenly try to teach you "eqvuilance relations", "Equivalence class", "Quotient set", "Projection", "Kernel" (Specifically in the Eqvuilance relation meaning), "partition", and that's only the terms I found in wikipedia. The class I help along has one more under this subject, and this is a first semester topic that is taught in a few weeks. All of those are technical, and all of those build on some other technical terms such as relations, functions, sets...
I concede that crypto has a bad naming scheme. It all sounds silly.
On the other hand, a passive student will let you go through an entire proof only to raise his hand when you finish and ask something that implies he did not understand the proof from the start.
Why didn't you say so? You wasted both of our time... I even turned around a few times and asked if everyone was following!
I know it's hard to understand when you don't understand. But I don't know how to deal with this problem and the senior lecturers don't seem to know how to, either...
I commented this earlier as well. Relating brings a lot of energy to a conversation, but it's also trickier.
I wish I had a better solution
When I was at Amaravati the head monk constantly brought up stories from his life, sometimes endlessly, and it was always nice to sit next to him since it was so energetic.
Here, I related something, and it brings a new thing to talk about, a few new edges.
A lot of times I use what I think you term as unclean language to inject some energy into the conversation. Without it I feel like the conversation dies, so I relate with my own story, or pass a half-judgement, do something to fire them up.
I don't know, it doesn't feel like the best solution, but it's the one I use, any thoughts?
Hop on the mathematics discord and ask in their book channel. It's the big server with a picture of a torus as the icon.
There are some very knowledgeable people there
The rock star thing is a bit creepy.
I'd like to be good at my job but not have the job turn into my entire life. Why does the conversation around tech imply that software jobs are either grey prisons or stress balls? Methinks reality is a bit more complex, but i'm just an undergrad.