I do pure type theory, semantics, proof theory &amp; intuitionistic mathematics. Very little of this will find a home in industry (at least, not for several decades). Industry has historically been incredibly resistant to 100% of the things I&#x27;m interested in, and I don&#x27;t blame them!<p>But it&#x27;s not just the hard &amp; expensive stuff that they are resistant to. Even the &quot;easy&quot; stuff (like adopting a programming language designed by the professionals instead of the amateurs) they won&#x27;t do.<p>I build interactive proof assistants. But I&#x27;m not pushing their applicability to industry, and I don&#x27;t expect them to be relevant to industry (for a long time at least). Why? Because it&#x27;s too expensive. Formal verification in type theory MAKES NO ECONOMIC SENSE; ask anyone who&#x27;s actually ever done any industrial verification, and you will find out what tools they are using, and it has <i>nothing</i> at all to do with the area of research I&#x27;m involved in. This is because there are inherent trade-offs in every technique, and industrial use-cases tend to prefer a certain set of trade-offs, and I prefer a different one.<p>But it&#x27;s a fascinating topic, and something that I&#x27;m preparing to devote the next several years of my life to. And I can safely say that a meteorite will more likely destroy Manhattan than will any of my computer science research be of widespread relevance to industry.<p>So, no, I totally disagree with everything you have said.