Reducing op's post to your own summary, then attacking that summary, is not making a point in good faith. Besides, it's not pure speculation, it's sitting on v

Reducing op's post to your own summary, then attacking that summary, is not making a point in good faith. Besides, it's not pure speculation, it's sitting on very solid foundations of reasoning that were outlined in the earlier post - Current cutting-edge tech for regular contact lenses has resulted in something (silicone hydro-gel) that lasts at best a month before it breaks down, but allows airflow through to the eye which is very important for long-term use and comfort. It's fair to be skeptical about overcoming this issue, which reasonably you would have to do if you're going to layer in some expensive tech and give a user a reasonable lifetime from the product.