Nearly all math textbooks and lectures mention practical applications. The problem rather seems to be that you have/had a different understanding of "practical" than your math professor.

MHRD

https://store.steampowered.com/app/576030/MHRD/

- oral exams via video call

- written exams where students are distributed over a larger area (e.g. the university rents a warehouse for the examination time) so that the COVID-19 spreading risk is nevertheless kept very small.

There exists both 16 bit protected mode (available since the 80286) and 32 bit protected mode (available since the 80386).

Windows has proportional scrollbars: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20030731-00/?p=43...

It's called a "scrollbar" and shown in the browser.

The road towards better (in the sense that they can be "more trusted") computer-checked proofs of the four-color theorem has also lead to a better (human) understanding of the four-color theorem.

This is rather an argument why not the employer, but the employee should pay for the health coverage. As they say in Germany:

"Wer zahlt, schafft an."

("who pays, commands", where the verb "anschaffen" (which I translate with "command" here) has the undertone of "giving sexual orders to a prostitute that she has to follow")

This is rather an argument for a change in taxation laws instead of gay marriage.

Preventing the Collapse of Civilization / Jonathan Blow (Thekla, Inc)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSRHeXYDLko

But these people are very biased judges.

Google still collects data.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shared_Source_Ini... lists the following licenses:

- Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL) [open source]

- Microsoft Reciprocal License (Ms-RL) [open source]

- Microsoft Limited Public License (Ms-LPL) [not open source]

- Microsoft Limited Reciprocal License (Ms-LRL) [not open source]

- Microsoft Reference Source License (Ms-RSL) [not open source]

So, "shared source" was clearly not a particular license by MS.

Also, at that time, Microsoft tried to establish this term (by its Shared Source Initiative) for the general concept of "source code is available, but the license is not necessarily open source".

In the linked Wikipedia article, one can read on this:

"However, former OSI president Michael Tiemann considers the phrase 'Shared Source' itself to be a marketing term created by Microsoft. He argues that it is 'an insurgent term that distracts and dilutes the Open Source message by using similar-sounding terms and offering similar-sounding promises'."

But I don't think that such a clause is a good idea: very often these internal modifications are not of the required quality. Also, I can easily imagine that some projects might drown in low-quality upstream pushes.

Here, two cartoons of SMBC on this concept:

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-12-29

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2014-04-20