I disagree. It's common to see news headlines about things claiming to solve important humanitarian problems; they get shared on facebook, talked about over din

I disagree. It's common to see news headlines about things claiming to solve important humanitarian problems; they get shared on facebook, talked about over dinner tables, and online communities. They often ommit the downsides and alternatives, which in many cases (I speculate it applies here) make the product non-viable. For example: indoor farming, water-from-air schemes, solar-panels-in-surprising-places etc. The HN community is more likely to provide a check on these claims - I think that's valuable. You'll find the acerbity is triggered by exaggerated claims, humanitarian claims, and lack-of-discussion of downsides. The TECLA page is filled with lines like this: "TECLA, a 3D printed global habitat for sustainable living". It sounds manipulative, makes me not trust them, and based on past experience, pattern-matches to most of their claims being false or exaggerated.