I think this is one of the least understood elements of technological advancement. We tend to think of it as linear, but often, the major visible breakthroughs are dependent on a whole bunch of less glamorous advancements being brought together.<p>The game Civilization was really great at representing this. Tech advancement is a DAG, rather than a chain or a tree. Reality is like this, but much, much more granular.<p>For instance, I'm acquainted with the inventor of the electret microphone. I'm sure that mic brought together a whole bunch of advancements, and once I was aware that miniaturizing microphones was nontrivial, it became clear that, for example, pocketable cell phones would not exist if not for tiny microphones.<p>I see this disconnect all the time in how we think about technology, and which innovations actually lead to major cultural changes. We get wowed by impressive inventions, like blockchain, but to date, it is largely not penetrating society outside of its own expanding hype bubbles. It's pretty clear to me that blockchain is not, of itself, transformative. Nor is it the final link in enabling a society-changing breakthrough. The question I'd ask is whether that's because other boring adjacent developments are missing? Or is it a relative dead end? I'm picking on blockchain, but a lot of other innovations could be chosen here.<p>In trying to predict the socio-technological future, it is important to become attuned to the boring, enabling technologies. And if I were an investor, I would <i>also</i> have to understand whether the economics of a potential enabling technology are attractive for achieving returns. I think of all the fiber that was laid in the 90s. Investors were right that it would eventually become really important, but they wrong that it would be lucrative for them to invest in.