Math is objective. The proof is either correct or not. Human interaction doesn't matter, except for perhaps marketing the importance of the results. In this case, the history of the problem itself has done the marketing, so any valid solution would be a wild success regardless of how socially eccentric the researcher is. Another recent example of such a mathematician is Grigori Perelman.
If the proof cannot be understood, it might very well be the case that another researcher more concerned with advancing knowledge for us all, will be credited. There are many roads to Rome.
Proofs that cannot be grasped are like unproven truths. Worth very little... They only stand through the credibility of the inventor. It downgrades the mathematician to a politician.
Mathematics, being a human endeavor, is fundamentally about human interaction. There's no point to doing math if there is no communicating it to other people.
It's the only pure way to describe existence. That isn't meaningful? Mathematics is a language, first and foremost. To argue otherwise is to fundamentally misunderstand its goals, methods, and form.
You can draw all the squiggly lines on paper that you want, but it won't mean anything until someone else interpets it. You cannot prove logic that only exists in your own head, because you cannot prove yourself rational. Your very existence does not even make sense without other people perceiving you.
Mathematics as done by humans is not just objective. There's a very social aspect to it; if you dress up the most amazing result in a drab and ununderstandable manner then nobody will notice it. You have to take the effort to make your result digestible and relatable, even for experts.
The proof can be completely fine, but if no one can understand it then it won't be accepted.
First of all your, viewpoint is restricted to EE/CS. Any of the other pure sciences: biology, chemistry, physics, etc. do not enjoy the same luxuries.
Another important distinction to make is that there are almost no science (i.e. research) jobs any more. Most technology jobs are just run of the mill programming, not actually investing in research.
Why would anyone even want this? The most important part of recording is the ability to have multiple takes, which is hindered if every take is to be uploaded at the same time. All other use cases can be covered by streaming your desktop.
The brutal truth is that most startups do not do anything remotely important or useful enough to adopt. The predominant attitude among many Silicon Valley wannabe billionaires is hoping to get acquired instead of doing anything actually ambitious. Which explains why what we see today are hordes of startups based on "products" that would be trivial features for more established companies.
What did it get right? It can be useful and it's backed by a solid brand.
Why did Persona fail to gain wide adoption? For the most obvious reason: because nobody cares. People don't want to use something new unless there's a pressing reason. Trivial conveniences don't cut it.
I doubt this will succeed. The pricing is enough to turn away most potential users and the remaining users won't generate enough income to sustain the company, especially if they meet everyone in person.
In NYC even an affordable first date costs around $25-$50. (2-4 cocktails/drinks at a semi-nice place at $10-$18 each) Paying an extra $20 to make that experience less volatile in terms of quality is not that outrageous.
Whether this will be enough to sustain the company I have no idea...
Because excess income inequality is a symptom of larger societal problems. Much of the debate over inequality serves as a proxy for other issues such as classism, government/corporate relations, civic responsibility, and the future of the economy.
