Hardly anyone uses "one" like that in spoken language.
To take the first sentence of the post, "There is a particularly dangerous occupational hazard in this subject: one can become focused, to the exclusion of other mathematical activity (and in extreme cases, on non-mathematical activity also), on a single really difficult problem in a field (or on some grand unifying theory) before one is really ready (both in terms of mathematical preparation, and also in terms of one’s career) to devote so much of one’s research time to such a project."
that might more commonly be rendered as "There is a particularly dangerous occupational hazard in this subject: becoming focused, to the exclusion of other mathematical activity (and in extreme cases, on non-mathematical activity also), on a single really difficult problem in a field (or on some grand unifying theory) before you're really ready (both in terms of mathematical preparation, and also in terms of your career) to devote so much of your research time to such a project." There's no doubt other ways people would put it. Why is such an alternative "atrocious"?
> Hardly anyone uses "one" like that in spoken language.
It's common in written-language [0][1] especially in a piece of writing whose primary aim is didactic.
> There is a particularly dangerous occupational hazard in this subject: becoming focused,
Actually it should be the infinitive not the adjective-form: to become focused. Elsewhere all you've done is replace the third person pronoun with the second-person e.g.
> before one is really ready
with
> before you're really ready
There's nothing wrong with using the second-person - but criticizing the author based on their use of the third-person pronoun one is only reflective of the lack of education on the part of the commenter, the shout out at political correctness and various alternative movements was totally unnecessary as well.
I often feel that 'we' is a better substitute than 'you' anyway, assuming a desire not to personalise. People seem frequently to say ridiculous things such as "you don't - I mean general-you, not you-you - ...", why do we (<-) go to such lengths to avoid the perfectly fine and much more succinct 'one'?
'We' has similar problems, but at least even if taken specifically and personally it includes oneself; thereby it's less likely to be taken as specific criticism or personal insult, etc.
I was talking about how people typically communicate in spoken language.
> There's nothing wrong with using the second-person - but criticizing the author based one
I didn't criticize the author at all.
And I'd ask you the same thing as I asked the person I was originally replying to... do you think there's something wrong with the alternatives to "one"?
Unfortunately for most people "one" probably sounds a little highbrow, so they use one of the atrocious alternatives.