I disagree that it's 100% on the poster, because: I believe the poster is jesting at the whole marking of it and let's be fair, it has been marketed as the nex

I disagree that it's 100% on the poster, because: I believe the poster is jesting at the whole marking of it and let's be fair, it has been marketed as the next big thing and how it will solve so many things very soon; Many new science articles of how they did this and that and yet nothing. Now, whilst I can appreciate that from lab to industrial production is a very long bumpy process and can often be longer than it took to do the many year lab work. That whole aspect is almost always overlooked in the marketing (news release) rewrites that filter down into Joe public news feeds. That I appreciate and get. So for me the real issue is not cynicism slants, it's the way news media takes such science and run with it to the stage that they build such expectations. Though we have been here before - remember flying cars and the public mindset in the 60's-80's era or indeed robots circa the World fair and how they would be in everybody's homes. Oh and I'm extremely mindful that to do some science you need funding and with that, you often have to up-sell what your doing to be able to do that science in the first place. Which is why I don't default view such cynicism as 100% down to the individual, when they are a product of so many links in the news/science chain and I'm just aware of that whole news production line from scientists after some money to do some science, to those that fund it wanting a ROI on their investment, down to institutions making carefully worded news release statements that will not say how or when, just push you into how this `could` or `will`(without specifying a year) do X,Y or Z better; And on paper they are right. But then the whole reality from lab to your home is a very long bumpy road and not everything is cost effective or that clear cut. Which explains your flying cars phase and kitchen robots phase of decades past.