> “the product is nowhere near ready for consumers, the technology doesn't appear to be there, and I can't imagine them being able to release anything other tha

> “the product is nowhere near ready for consumers, the technology doesn't appear to be there, and I can't imagine them being able to release anything other than a tech demo for many years” which is pure speculation and dismisses the entire news as.. a lie, I guess? We shouldn't take what we read in a PR piece for granted. See: https://swimswam.com/artificial-gills-breath-underwater-like-james-bond/ https://swimswam.com/artificial-gills-breath-underwater-like... https://wccftech.com/skarp-laser-razor/ https://wccftech.com/skarp-laser-razor/ https://greenerideal.com/news/vehicles/0627-solar-powered-roadways/ https://greenerideal.com/news/vehicles/0627-solar-powered-ro... And even some of the bigger failures like Theranos where the product was technologically infeasible from the start. But with at least the three links I have listed - you can probably work out that they were infeasible by just applying common sense. A laser hot enough to easily burn through hair will probably burn your face, tiny artificial gills probably won't be able to keep up with human lungs, and we probably make roads out of tarmac and not glass for a reason. IMO I think you can work out this is far away from a commercial product from similar logic - their prototype looks like something I wouldn't want to stick in my eye, their current battery can't last the day, and existing contact lens manufacturers can't make a comfortable lens that lasts over a month even without stuffing it with electronics.