Q suggested that there has been technologies kept from civilization because they reduce the profits of established industries.
Q has implied that such technologies would be released to us.
I remember about 5 years ago, Trump said "you can't believe the technology that is about to get released."
We have always known that Elon musk is a genius, but it seems like lately the narrative is taking that to new extremes.
Trump is saying he is not from this world. A recent article stated how he put together a computer system in one month that would typically take 4 years.
Whether it is real, or a role he is playing, he is now essentially Tony Stark, a man that can create a super warrior armor out of a box of scraps inside a cave.
What better way to introduce amazing technology and to make it readily available to the public then a semi philanthropist super genius like Elon musk.
I can imagine in 5 years from now he says oh I just discovered a source for unlimited energy. 10 years from now, Oh, I just discovered anti-gravity.
It would not make much sense for this technology to be introduced by the government. Would you really want Exxon to be the ones that reveal they discovered a new energy source?
Your thoughts?
I’ve noticed that were not having any great inventions recently by individuals.
Most that are developed by individuals sell out to an entity with greater means to bring it to market. This doesn't (necessarily) mean that individuals are lacking in creativity.
Honestly, if I came up with a good idea, and the right company came along with the right offer, I'd take it. Coming up with an idea is only a fraction of the effort it takes to make a commercial success, and the reality is, most individual inventors don't have the business savvy to follow through on the back end, their talents lie elsewhere.
Sort of like the guy who invented SuperSoaker.
Most individual inventors are in the debt slavery area like the rest of us. Few have the means needed to get an invention prototyped, worked out, and ready for mass production without a team of lawyers, financiers, NGO's and government permit types ready to bankrupt them before they get any return on investment. And if they do get close, their labs and notes might suffer mystery accidents.
Several years ago I read that unless an invention can make at least $50,000, it's not worth patenting, so it must be up to at least $100,000 now. Marketing the invention without a patent was recommended for a couple reasons. No matter how good a patent seems, someone can likely find a way to get around it (it only takes an "improvement" of an existing patent to get a new patent), and some company might outright infringe on the invention without worrying about it because a lawsuit would take years to be resolved, and a small fortune required, which the individual inventor wouldn't likely be able to afford.