I haven't seen the author of the OP article talk about timelines. It was about skeptics not being able to disprove that we will NOT have that at some point. Wh

I haven't seen the author of the OP article talk about timelines. It was about skeptics not being able to disprove that we will NOT have that at some point. Which I found to be good criticism because many charlatans operate exactly like that: (a) make a nebulous claim, (b) get called out, (c) pull the "you can't disprove me" card while OBVIOUSLY a good scientific discussion should go the other way: the claimer should prove their claims. That's why I liked the OP article where the author called Drexler a sci-fi writer.