@TaliaRinger
Not to mention all the ways proof assistants can aid with understanding and social communication.

How many times have we all read a paper and said "where did that x come from?" Or not been able to parse ambiguous notation? Or try to figure out why the heck the "obvious" step actually holds?

Proof assistants can aid in the understanding of all of these, and help capture more of the mental state of the mathematician in a way that can persist.

I'm mostly angry about the complete cognitive disconnect between the academic discipline behind the conference series and the real-life implications the organisers' attitude has for (potential) participants.

Scenario 1: I'm a single parent and can't get childcare.
Conference: Too bad. We're in-person.

Scenario 2: I have a (in/visable) disability that makes in-person difficult/impossible.
Conference: Too bad. We're in-person.

Scenario 3: I can't afford to travel.
Conference: Too bad. We're in-person.

Scenario 4: I've seen the name of a presenter on a programme who makes me unsafe.
Conference: Too bad. We're in-person.

Scenario 5: I have lived experience to share, but have to remain anonymous for several reasons.
Conference: Too bad. We're in-person.