[Loquebantur]

One should teach the next generation the best way possible, and not turn them into conformists.

"Standards" are things to be overcome when they've outlived their prime.

Disparaging new ideas as "niche" and "specialised" when their explicit aspiration is to be better foundations is motivated reasoning.

[Certhas]

The ideas of GA aren't new. As the article explains, the ideas of Clifford algebras are common place throughout research and deserve to be introduced earlier. Understanding bivectors and wedge products is much more important than, for example, Euler angles in my opinion.

The geometric product on the other hand obscures much of the structure, and serves no pedagogical or fundamental purpose. Not everything that's new is better, just by virtue of being new.

You might have misunderstood my point about what's niche, or I misunderstood which formulation of Maxwell the post I was replying to was referring to. Either way, it feels this discussion went off the rails rather immediately...

[Certhas]

Maybe I wasn't clear: Other formulations that reveal dualities, etc... at the cost of obscuring the fundamental covariance deserve to be treated as secondary.