What I chose to take from the original article was that these inventions were emerging and evolving technologies. None were perfect but all represented potential solutions to problems.
The helicopter wasn’t presented as a polished product but as an innovative concept design.
“What I chose to take from the original article was that these inventions were emerging and evolving technologies. None were perfect but all represented potential solutions to problems.
The helicopter wasn’t presented as a polished product but as an innovative concept design.” [rockrr, post 91]
You identified the central point of the original article better than any of the rest of us. And you summarized it more neatly.
The headline writer and the website editors are at fault: in the competition for read attention (and webpage clicks) they go over the top. More and more often.
Science journalism rarely corresponds with actual science. Same goes for engineering, systems development, and many related tech topics. Pop-culture general-interest news-copy scribblers chain their thinking to individualism, romance, drama, etc; progress in small-s scientific research (and development based thereon) depends on factors entirely opposite: teamwork & collaboration, diligence in applying laws of physics & math; vigilance & care in observing & recording details; inspiration in asking the right questions in the first place, and unromantic hard-headedness in searching out the answers.