This is extremely shallow. This guy deliberately focuses on the most tabloid-style reporting of the HoTT book he could find, a New Scientist piece, and then uses it to attack the book itself for having unsubstantiated grandiose claims. Well, guess what -- you're reading a New Scientist article, what did you expect?<p>Perhaps it would be more befitting to a person in his position (a CS professor, it appears) to actually critique the book itself. Judging by his rant, it's doubtful he even read it. Otherwise he would have known that the most controversial thing about it is a preference of constructive proof, when possible, as they are generally both more illuminating and rely on fewer assumptions.