When you change the world and no one notices

If you want to make money, you should never invent new things - Just copy existing things and improve upon them.<p>That&#x27;s why our society has such a short-term focus.<p>The brightest software engineers these days are writing essentially the same software over and over again (with very slight modifications).<p>I think the same can be said of almost any industry - All our intelligence and energy is spent on competing with each other and then using marketing&#x2F;advertising to leverage tiny advantages in a product&#x2F;service in order to win over disproportionate amounts of customers.<p>I think the reason why it takes years for disruptive innovations to get noticed is because marketing (and by extension, the media) is paid for by &#x27;today money&#x27;.<p>Marketers don&#x27;t take bets based on future prospects - They don&#x27;t need to because there is so much financial incentive for them to stay in the present.

It&#x27;s also worth keeping in mind the Saganism<p><pre><code> But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. </code></pre> We can see what is currently being laughed at. Bitcoin stands out as a good example. History will decide if they were geniuses or clowns. All we have at the moment are opinions.<p>On the other hand there is a particular form of sneering dismissiveness that I see from a few people that I use as a guide. In the Bitcoin case all the right people were panning it so I grabbed a few for $11 each, that worked out well.

The irony is that, while the Wright Brothers are the only household names from the pioneering days of flight, essential contributions were made long before Kitty Hawk, and many came after them to make their planes useful.<p>The Work of the Wright brothers was just one link in a causal chain with beginnings preceding them by over 250 years.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;History_of_aviation#Primitive_beginnings" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;History_of_aviation#Primitiv...</a>

A lot of the adoption curve comes from the economics too. The same thing 10 times cheaper is a revolution itself.<p>We had 3D printers in the 80s, but 3D printers starting becoming a lot cheaper only in the past ~5 years.<p>1870 PV cells were a pretty piss poor energy source, the real revolution happened in the last 10 years when they started to become an economic competitor.

This is one reason I dislike the silicon valley and sf culture of &quot;innovation&quot;. A lot of it is a variation on a well-known theme and the model is predicated on unsustainable hypergrowth followed by surviving until acquisition. Basically chasing fads and trends instead of doing anything truly innovative because the venture model can&#x27;t follow through something that requires a decade of incubation.

If I remember correctly the Wright Brothers were secretive. They were trying to perfect the Flyer to get a military contract and didn&#x27;t want to publicize the advances they were making. They didn&#x27;t invite anyone to see the initial test flights. At the time, the French were getting much more&#x2F;better press for doing less. Without the press reports no one believed they were actually flying.<p><i>Wilbur and Orville Wright made their historic first powered flight on December 17, 1903, from Kill Devil Hill in Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. The longest of four flights that day lasted 59 seconds and covered a distance of 852 feet. There were few witnesses to the flights and no reporters</i><p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wifcon.com&#x2F;anal&#x2F;analwright.htm" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wifcon.com&#x2F;anal&#x2F;analwright.htm</a>

One minor note. The warning about horseless carriages is fake[0].<p>[0] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.snopes.com&#x2F;history&#x2F;document&#x2F;horseless.asp" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.snopes.com&#x2F;history&#x2F;document&#x2F;horseless.asp</a>

That&#x27;s because the 1903 Wright Flyer was barely able to fly a few hundred feet. It was just a proof of concept for stability. The 1904 Flyer II was able to circle and fly for about five minutes. The 1905 Flyer III crashed a few times, and then they reworked the controls and were able to fly 24 miles.<p>At last, they had a minimum viable product. In 1907 they came out with the Wright Model A, which was the production version of the improved Flyer III. This had a range of 125 miles, and was the first production aircraft.

Drones had a very similar adoption curve, and really only got past the &quot;toy&quot; perception when DJI&#x27;s Phantom came out.<p>RC Planes and helicopter POV footage was great to enjoy on YouTube, but the learning curve was so immense that it kept the mainstream market away.

&gt;&gt; no mention of the men who concurred (sic) the sky for the first time in human history.<p>Maybe that was the problem. They <i>weren&#x27;t</i> the first to conquer the sky. People had been flying in hot air balloons for 120 years by that point. By 1903, getting people up into the sky was old-hat. Sure, they did it in a different way, but what they demonstrated was--strictly speaking--inferior to the technology that was already available. If you wanted to get up into the clouds in 1903, you weren&#x27;t going to use a Wright Brothers machine that would only let you skip along the ground for a few minutes at a time, you&#x27;d use a hot air balloon and stick around for a while. Can people really be blamed for missing the fact that heavier-than-air flight would be able to travel much faster and farther than balloons?

It&#x27;s true that innovation process used to take a long time. See the story of the telegraph for example, which was clearly a breakthrough, but took half a century to be adopted (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;The_Victorian_Internet" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;The_Victorian_Internet</a>).<p>Nowadays, the process might take a lot lot less time than before though (<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;waitbutwhy.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;01&#x2F;artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;waitbutwhy.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;01&#x2F;artificial-intelligence-revolu...</a>)<p>And also - let&#x27;s remember that it&#x27;s not because something goes through the first steps of this seven-step path that it will become a breakthrough.

&gt; <i>It happened with the index fund – easily the most important financial innovation of the last half-century. John Bogle launched the first index fund in 1975. No one paid much attention to for next two decades.</i><p>That&#x27;s in part because everyone was googly-eyed over managed funds thanks to Peter Lynch&#x27;s 29% average annual return for the Magellan Fund from &#x27;77 to &#x27;90. Index funds didn&#x27;t beat that dude.

The other thing is that these kinds of &quot;misunderstood heroic ignored genius&quot; tales are complete bollocks. In reality there was always an existing idea out there before these &quot;revolutionary innovations&quot;.<p>For example, people had been imagining flying for millennia before the Wright brothers. Leonard da Vinci had drawn hang-gliders and helicopters hundreds of years before and there was the myth of Icarus thousands of years before that. Our distant ancestors even &quot;flew&quot; through the trees. People also have flying dreams, before they&#x27;ve even flown in reality and they probably had flying dreams thousands of years ago too. It&#x27;s not a new idea so no wonder people weren&#x27;t <i>that</i> amazed when the Wright brothers flew. There are never any truly new ideas, only remixes and hybrids of existing ones, e.g. Relativity was Einstein&#x27;s synthesis of ideas from (among others) Poincaré and Lorentz and you can trace their ideas back too.

I got curious as to how true it was that the Wright&#x27;s first flight was hardly reported, so searched New Zealand&#x27;s Papers Past. Maybe not front page news, but not ignored, either...<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;paperspast.natlib.govt.nz&#x2F;newspapers?items_per_page=100&amp;phrase=2&amp;query=wilbur+wright&amp;sort_by=byDA" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;paperspast.natlib.govt.nz&#x2F;newspapers?items_per_page=...</a>

Also, the author is wrong on the first flight which was not the wrights but clement ader... in 1890. Nice fail. He should be more modest and avoid giving les sons to journalists and industrialists when he does not now his own history, even 140 years later and with the Hell of the internet and Wikipedia. He should be more self-aware that being right about innovation is indeed difficult.<p>For those interested in clement ader : <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;fr.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;%C3%89ole_(avion)" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;fr.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;%C3%89ole_(avion)</a>

The author has a good intuition but he forgets patents and secrets. 3D printing was a success in the industrial world through the 90s. It became a public success when its patents ended around 2004. Why would people talk about something they can&#x27;t use anyway?

The mechanics of innovation adoption have been extensively studied (e.g. [1]). It takes the innovators (which are often shrewd introverts) to create new things and early adopters (well-connected extroverts) to spread the word to the next group. As adoption continues, maturity increases and prices go down. At the same time, more and more people are using the product, which convinces more rosk-averse people to have a look. At best the result is a chain reaction, but it always follows a sigmoid curve. And due to more efficient means of communication, the adoption curves are still accelerating. It took decades until telephones or TVs were established. Today we got smartphones, HackerNews and the Twitter firehose. Suffice it to say that, yes, innovators are always a fringe part of a group, and they better don&#x27;t care too much what others are saying. I would say this property is to some extent scale free, as one finds the same patterns within research communities which, as one would expect, should _all_ consist of innovators.<p>[1] Geoffrey Moore, Crossing the Chasm

<i>Horseless carriages propelled by gasoline might attain speeds of 14 or even 20 miles per hour. The menace to our people of vehicles of this type hurtling through our streets and along our roads and poisoning the atmosphere would call for prompt legislative action.</i><p>Congress were actually rather insightful in these predictions. Millions now die every year from motor vehicle accidents and air pollution.

<i>Things that are instantly adored are usually just slight variations over existing products.</i><p>For true innovation to happen, what we need are brave investors.

&gt; “Zen-like patience” isn’t a typical trait associated with entrepreneurs.<p>Or investors.

I think that inventions are similar to bars; nobody can really tell you which ones become popular and which won&#x27;t. Neither the barkeeper nor the inventor can really control their fate.<p>I&#x27;m still waiting for the ridiculously cheap, extremely high density write-once laser storage on adhesive transparent Tesa film. There was a working prototype already more than a decade ago, they funded a spin-off company, and since then nothing seems to have happened.<p>Extremely bendable e-ink-like displays at throwaway-pricing were also promised to me more than ten years ago.<p>My personal explanation is that many good inventions are bought by the competition and then quickly hidden in the drawers, because not every technology that is better than before allows the company who owns it to also make more money than before. Or many of these inventions are just bogus marketing speech to attract investors and they really don&#x27;t work.

The author have got many facts downright wrong: Wrights were actually very secretive and they were reluctant to publish anything before they got the patent. They were so adamant about the patent that they didn&#x27;t do any public demonstration of flight for years until they were literally forced by competing claims. In those times people making claims for &quot;heavier than air&quot; flights were numerous and it was hard to take anyone seriously unless they do demonstration. They not only chose not to do so until they got patent but also did almost nothing to enhance their technology meanwhile. Their contribution except for first flight is very marginal and their rest of the lives are dominated by nothing but patent worries, bringing massive lawsuits on others and getting royalties. They also made a very generic patent claim essentially asserting that any system that produces lift is covered by it. This produced a lot of friction in bringing new innovations to market leaving USA significantly behind of Europe.<p>I admire Wrights thoroughly for their vision, hard work and making miracle happen through their miger resources but saying that no one would have noticed if they saw first airplane in air is bogus.<p>Reference: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Wilbur-Orville-Biography-Brothers-Transportation&#x2F;dp&#x2F;0486402975" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Wilbur-Orville-Biography-Brothers-Tra...</a>

&#x27;concurred the sky&#x27;? Sure, typos happen to everyone but this is definitely of the highest order.

&quot;It happened with index funds&quot;<p>Wait, what? index funds invention on par with flying?<p>Oh, &quot;collaborativefund.com&quot; ...

Nobody noticed cause Santos Dumont did it first :D

Okay, suppose we grant this at least for the sake of argument.<p>What&#x27;s your &#x27;watch this space&#x27;? What technologies currently in prototype stage do you think have a bright future?

The article&#x27;s subtle implication that we are all changing the world but it&#x27;ll take time for that change to be realized is truly arrogant and delusional.

A quote by Gandhi comes to mind when reading those seven steps. &quot;First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win.”

What I read from this story is that it&#x27;s crucial for an invention to reach the stage when it really starts delivering practical advantage. No one noticed early success of the Wright because what they had achieved so far didn&#x27;t have any practical application. So no reason to blame people for shortsightedness -- it&#x27;s rational behavior.

The Wright brothers kept their experiment a secret purposefully, so it&#x27;s not surprising that they didn&#x27;t show up on the news

&gt; The menace to our people of vehicles of this type hurtling through our streets and along our roads and poisoning the atmosphere would call for prompt legislative action.<p>That was quite prescient! Unfortunately we didn&#x27;t do that, and cars took over the streets, caused millions of deaths and injuries, and indeed poisoned our atmosphere.

I&#x27;m an inventor, I have experienced this exact thing I have a sever cabinet that powers it self and a anti gavity machine but no one cares!! I&#x27;ve aplied to the YC 16 winter for acritic nails that change colors with your phone or you can load a gif I hope they go for it so I can make cars fly.

Great inventions may be ignored. However, many ignored inventions are just sucky pieces of garbage.

&quot;Horseless carriages propelled by gasoline might attain speeds of 14 or even 20 miles per hour. (...)&quot;<p>This quote is a well-known hoax: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.snopes.com&#x2F;history&#x2F;document&#x2F;horseless.asp" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.snopes.com&#x2F;history&#x2F;document&#x2F;horseless.asp</a>

And until a world war made the military sit up and spend massively into their development, they were a rich man&#x27;s novelty.<p>Never mind that so many had made claims about flight before the Wrights, that having the press be less than interested was to be expected.

This article is just plain wrong.<p>Every point is incorrect &#x2F; misleading and the &#x27;point&#x27; is the direct opposite of reality.<p>People latch onto new amazing we&#x27;ll change the world ideas to easily.<p>Real change happens from hard work and gradual change is the real reality.

The vast majority of products that people don&#x27;t understand and believe to be useless are in fact useless.<p>The first time I used Google I knew it was amazing and never used altavista again. When Facebook came to my campus it spread like wildfire.<p>These stories are quite interesting but at the same time what are they suggesting? An investor wants you to spend your whole life chasing a dream because they don&#x27;t care if it fails and get paid if it succeeds. If you love doing something, do it regardless of what people think. But don&#x27;t let an investor convince you to waste years working on something that nobody wants because that is what all successful entrepreneurs do. In a few cases it works out but the vast majority of the time it doesn&#x27;t.

To compare the 3D printing of the 1980&#x27;s with that of today is a stretch, at best, both in quality and price. And people who care have been &#x27;3D printing&#x27; (high quality, like with laser sintering, not Makerbot crap) for years.<p>It&#x27;s disingenuous to suggest that the very first moment something has been shown in a proof of concept should be the moment that everyone starts rejoicing and flocking to it en masse. Many technologies need years or decades to get mature enough for wide spread use (which the author seems to equate with &#x27;getting recognition&#x27;).

I don&#x27;t disagree with the thesis of the article for inventions that were destined to be successful but I think it exhibits a strong sense of surviorship bias in predicting anything contemporary to be in the same league. I think transformative inventions like airplanes or index funds can by definition only be defined in retrospect and the odds that anything contemporary can be predicted to turn out the same way are slim. I wonder what a good order of magnitude would be for failed inventions vs successful ones, maybe 10000:1?

&gt; Wilbur and Orville Wright conquered flight on December 17th, 1903. Few inventions were as transformational over the next century. It took four days to travel from New York to Los Angeles in 1900, by train. By the 1930s it could be done in 17 hours, by air. By 1950, six hours.<p>And by 2016, 6 hours still.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;flightsphere.com&#x2F;flight-time&#x2F;from&#x2F;new-york&#x2F;to&#x2F;los-angeles" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;flightsphere.com&#x2F;flight-time&#x2F;from&#x2F;new-york&#x2F;to&#x2F;los-ang...</a>

The Alexander Graham Bell&#x2F;Western Union story is a fabrication.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.historyofphonephreaking.org&#x2F;2011&#x2F;01&#x2F;the-greatest-bad-business-decision-quotation-that-never-was.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.historyofphonephreaking.org&#x2F;2011&#x2F;01&#x2F;the-greatest...</a>

Not always true; the iPhone went through all those stages very quick and created a new reality. The iPad did the same, in a smaller way. While one may argue these are mere improvements, they were major enough to change the entire social dimension in only a few short years.

logged in to say, &quot;this process can take decades.&quot;<p>...try millennia!<p>The aeolipile, regarded as a curious novelty (a &#x27;temple wonder&#x27;), created by Heron of Alexander in 1st century AD was the first steam turbine... the eventual mastery of which led to the industrial revolution.

To me this piece feels like an ad for index funds, riddled with false facts and generalizations.

I understand the votes - that piece is like being written especially for HN BUT it&#x27;s only just that. It tries to extrapolate a moral story from a few convenient incidents and ignores all the rest. I.e. its method is really unscientific but it poses like such.<p>Some inventions seem to take long to gain traction - yes. Others though (how many compared to the first set?) gain traction immediately (e.g. lots of inventions in medicine or lots of inventions in -ehm- IT). Others still don&#x27;t get on ever.<p>There is no easy moral here. We could derive some statistics if we had all data or some teachings per story. How your invention will be treated by the near or far future is not just a matter of newspapers and general public interest.<p>PS: Also -as I read in commends here- the main point seems bogus too as Wrights themselves were extra secretive about their experiments.

Not a word about Gustave Whitehead, who may have been the first to successfully flight?

Such an American mistake to think that the Wrights invented the airplane...

&gt; It takes 30 years for a new idea to seep into the culture.<p>From Altair to IBM PC, 7 years, Mac, only 10. From IBM Simon to the iPhone fueled boom in 2008 only 14 years passed.

New vs. News <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;gTAghAJcO1o?t=15m23s" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;gTAghAJcO1o?t=15m23s</a>

A more general related concept is the difference between merit and popularity. Some people actually forget that they are not the same thing.

Don&#x27;t forget the existing and we&#x27;ll established businesses who will fight for their lives any threatening &#x27;idea&#x27;

The problem is that while great innovations frequently go unnoticed, going unnoticed does not automatically imply greatness.

The article is certainly interesting but it has the same trait as too many pop science books: it relies on selective anecdotal evidence to support their specific point.

First they will ignore you. Then they will laugh at you. Then they will work against you. Then you win.

The article&#x27;s timeline of flight goes like this:<p>1903. First flight, ignored.<p>1904. Nameless hot-air-balloon-flying count dismisses possibility of flying machines.<p>1905. People see Wrights flying around Dayton.<p>1906. Passing mention of Wrights in NYT.<p>1908. Reporters sent to observe Wrights, credence given.<p>1930s. NYC LAX: 17 hours.<p>1950. NYC LAX: 6 hours.<p>This story is a lie. I don&#x27;t mean that it contains anything actually false (as far as I know, it doesn&#x27;t) but it is actively and intentionally misleading by its selective omission of facts. Although the rumors were eagerly repeated, people generally didn&#x27;t believe the Wrights had built a flying machine because <i>the Wrights refused to demonstrate it</i>. Then, when other people started building airplanes, they started suing them. Consequently, the US lost its leadership in aviation to France (and Brazil!) for over a decade, which would have been a longer period of time if France hadn&#x27;t been devastated by the Great War.<p>Here are some of the omitted events from the timeline.<p>1896. People fly in Octave Chanute&#x27;s biplane hang glider.<p>1900. Wrights begin glider experiments at Kitty Hawk at Chanute&#x27;s suggestion.<p>1901. Wrights lecture in Chicago on their glider experiments, and in particular wing-warping control, at the invitation of Chanute, who lives there.<p>1902. Wrights continue glider experiments, visited by Chanute.<p>1903. Wrights apply for wing-warping patent.<p>1903. Wrights&#x27; first four flights, of 12 to 59 seconds. Airplane irreparably damaged immediately post-flight. Several newspapers report the event, inaccurately, from a leak by a telegraph operator. Dayton Daily News disbelieves tall tale, doesn&#x27;t report.<p>1904. Wrights issue public statement, build new airplane, invite reporters to first flight attempt on the condition that no photos be taken. Attempt fails. Further dozens of test flights are undertaken in strict secrecy, except for eyewitness accounts published in a beekeeping magazine. Longest flight exceeds five minutes. Airplane destroyed.<p>1905. Wrights continue tests witnessed by a small circle of friends. Longest flight is 38 minutes. Scientific American doubts the alleged experiments happened. Dayton Daily News reports &quot;The Flight of a Flying Machine.&quot; Wrights end experiments, refuse to fly any more without some buyer signing a contract to buy an airplane. Governments of US, Britain, France, and Germany (!) refuse to sign contracts without a demonstration.<p>1905. Aéro-Club de France and other organizations federate in the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale.<p>1906. Paris edition of New York Herald asks of Wrights, &quot;FLYERS OR LIARS?&quot;<p>1906. Santos-Dumont makes a powered heavier-than-air flight in Bagatelle Field in Paris, certified by Aéro-Club de France and the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale.<p>1906. Wrights make 0 flights.<p>1906. Wrights receive patent on wing-warping control techniques they derived from Chanute&#x27;s work.<p>1907. Wrights make 0 flights.<p>1908. The Clement-Bayard company in Paris starts a production run of airplanes of Santos-Dumont&#x27;s design; 100 planned, 50 built, 15 sold.<p>1908. Wrights finally sign a contract. Make first public demonstration in Le Mans, France. Make first passenger flight. Airplane destroyed in crash. Wilbur emerges from wreckage with cut on nose.<p>1908. Glenn Curtiss starts making airplanes with ailerons to avoid the Wrights&#x27; wing-warping patent.<p>1909. Curtiss sells an aileron plane; Wrights begin suing him and basically everything that moves, including foreign aviators who visit the US.<p>1909. Clement-Bayard planes are sold with a choice of Clement or Wright engines.<p>1909. Wrights form the Wright Company.<p>1910. German court rules Wrights&#x27; patent invalid due to their disclosure of wing-warping in 1901.<p>1910. Wrights stop working on airplane design and switch to working full-time on suing other airplane designers.<p>1910. Octave Chanute publicly deplores Wrights&#x27; secrecy and litigiousness. Dies.<p>1912. Wilbur Wright dies of typhoid.<p>1913. Wrights win lawsuit against Curtiss.<p>1915. Orville Wright quits the company.<p>1917. US enters World War I, has no domestically produced airplanes of acceptable quality due to Wright-initiated patent battles; US forces fly French airplanes. US government forces aircraft companies to enter a cross-licensing cartel.<p>Kids, don&#x27;t be like the Wright Brothers. Be like Chanute. Be like Santos-Dumont. Change the world, don&#x27;t try to own it.

I don&#x27;t like his Vanguard example. He&#x27;s pointing to exponential growth and saying that for two hand-picked points, it appears as if nothing had changed.<p>That&#x27;s sort of how exponential growth works. The growth in the most recent period makes all the other growth before it look trivial. I bet if he could zoom in on the &#x27;75 to &#x27;95 period he could plot the arrows in the same place and draw the same conclusion.

The Wrights&#x27; first flight didn&#x27;t change the world. Nor did photovoltaic cells in 1876; nor did 3D printing in 1989. And none of these inventions <i>could</i> change the world at the time, because they were little more than proofs of principle: They showed that something was possible, but they were not in fact <i>usable</i>.<p>Photovoltaic cells aren&#x27;t becoming popular now because people are suddenly realizing that they exist; they&#x27;re becoming popular because <i>the technology has reached the point where the cells are cheap enough and efficient enough to be practical</i>. The same goes for 3D printing, and the same went for the Wrights&#x27; aircraft: They received plenty of attention once they moved from the realm of curiosities to being useful inventions.<p>The title of this article should be &quot;when you <i>don&#x27;t</i> change the world and no one notices&quot;.

The time between invention and practical application is shortening (Internet plays a huge part) which is why the pace of innovation is accelerating.

An interesting article, but I would say this is one that is better showcased to, say, a primary school audience rather than the HN crowd perhaps? The writing style and concepts were a little too simplistic and lacked the depth I would expect from the publications I normally see linked on here.<p>Note: But even for a younger audience, I would do some serious editing of the text (e.g. misuse of &quot;concurred&quot; instead of &quot;conquered&quot; etc.) before publication.

It&#x27;s funny and saddening at the same time to see how often the first entry on HN is a worthless&#x2F;incorrect&#x2F;inaccurate&#x2F; article .

Finally validates that my ideas that everyone has been saying are terrible, confusing and useless are infact world changing just as I have thought they are.

The 7 step process shows us how the majority of people are &quot;dumb&quot;. And by dumb, I mean they lack the creative ability to look forward and imagine how a technology can change the world.<p>Those of us who are not suffering that disability should not feel guilty for our capabilities, but we should recognize that we are intellectually superior, because we should be ruling the world from every corner, not them. Sadly, many of them are the ones running governments and giant corporations.<p>All men may be created equal, but through different educational and parental environments, all men do not arrive at adulthood as equals.