I understand the votes - that piece is like being written especially for HN BUT it's only just that. It tries to extrapolate a moral story from a few convenient

I understand the votes - that piece is like being written especially for HN BUT it'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. 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't get on ever. 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. PS: Also -as I read in commends here- the main point seems bogus too as Wrights themselves were extra secretive about their experiments.