[082349872349872]

> People don't do computer science for the mere theory of it.

Are you sure? If I were to pick any arbitrary computer scientist (even stipulating it won't be EWD himself, this would still be "demonic choice", from your point of view), are you prepared to argue that whomever I pick does/did not do cs for the "mere" theory?

Exercise N: Was Euclid's GCD doing computer science?

Exercise S: Is watching TikTok doing computer science?

Hint: Gurfr dhrfgvbaf ner zrnag gb vyyhfgengr gur fhssvpvrapl naq/be arprffvgl bs pbzchgref gb qbvat pbzchgre fpvrapr.

[wawjgreen]

Yes, very very sure, but let me clarify.

When I say "don't, I mean "should not", but if they do, hey, that is what pedantry is for isn't it?

Exercise Q: Is doing theory for the sake of theory not ultimately about better theories that, in the end, should always yield utility in the real, applied world of computers solving hard problems?

Answer N & S: Yes, in a way, but it still, ultimately has sth to do with computers. Re TikTok I am not sure how you classify "watching". It can have something to do with CS and therefore computers in the sense that the original Tiktok source-code is written ON A COMPUTER--and when users watch Tiktok, the real data is analyzed ON A COMPUTER.