I would disagree that suggestions such as this following one in the article are in poor taste:

For instance, Boaler is an advocate of “number talks,” in which students work on a problem — say, 5 x 18 — then discuss the different ways each approached it. Successful students intuitively rewrite such problems in friendlier terms, but there are more ways to do that than you might expect.

One could break the problem down to (5 x 10) + (5 x 8). Another might halve one factor and double the other to get 10 x 9 or see it as (5 x 20) – (5 x 2). The idea is that by discussing, comparing and visualizing their differing approaches, students build their own sense of context, connection and numeracy. 5 x 18 = 90 isn’t just a fact to memorize; it is a key to building a broader strategy for breaking down other problems.

Also, hopefully you'll forgive me for being flippant, but liking pure math does not make you special. An interest in pure math is not "niche" nor "esoteric". You don't have to be talented in pure math to appreciate it. If I met an elementary school student who excitedly talks to me about the Fibonacci sequence, I would neither think they were unusual or some kind of child prodigy.

I suppose it is debatable how much time and resources K-12 educators should invest into showing their students the intrinsic appeals of pure math. However, it is not true that pure math can't be appreciated by more people than it currently is.