i'd say that’s pretty damn extreme. while i agree that technology (broadly) has been evolving at a far slower pace than what i’d have expected (we got people wa

i'd say that’s pretty damn extreme. while i agree that technology (broadly) has been evolving at a far slower pace than what i’d have expected (we got people walking around the moon how many decades ago?) but that’s not to say there has been no progress at all, and definitely not so for computing in particular.. ’progression’ involves a lot more than increased capability. i’d say a greater measure of technological progress is in looking at the diffusion and mass adoption of a transformative technology.. even if you could (maybe) do all of what you do on a computer today 25 years ago, my parent sure as hell couldn’t (i wasn’t born yet) and neither could 99%+ of the world’s population. the fact that we’re nearing a point where everyone has access to some sort of computing and connectivity is real progress. as too is the fact that you can get something today that’s thousands of times more powerful, and at a fraction of the cost. also (and relating more-so to my original comment), there has clearly been a lot of progression towards making (the now far more powerful) components smaller and more mobile, which has clearly has a significant effect on how people interact with that same underlying technology. i mean forget smartphones, there are watches now that are more powerful (and capable) than early pc’s, and i wouldn’t write that off in saving we've ‘failed’ just because we aren’t driving-around in flying cars (operated, of course, by our humanoid robot chauffeur’s, and in-route to pluto for some good skiing)..