I like what you said about patience and still having something to be patient about. In that respect, nothing has changed, although the passage of time is wearing. There have also been some missteps or developments if you will, that do not inspire confidence. However, the fact remains, in the absence of definitive information to the contrary, we have to assume that the status quo prevails. The goals Steve laid out are still what we have to work with and they haven’t gone away. It helps that there is no alternative. Having said that, there is still plenty of evidence that a lot is going on, as some here have pointed out. In addition to what Steve has told us, we have third-party evidence from numerous sources that Steve is still active, the company is still active, stuff is getting done.

We’ve kind of gotten away from talking about the boldness of the undertaking itself as we’ve become consumed by what is not happening. There is the science, the application, and converting both into revenue. Each is fraught with its own challenges and opportunities for failure. I was reminded of the audacity of it all by an obituary in the NYT yesterday. Obituaries are fascinating because by personalizing history they highlight the actual drama of discovery or creativity in the arts. In the case of science they help make something complicated seem less obscure. The one yesterday in NYT of Robert Curl Jr on the origins of nanotechnology was interesting.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/20/science/ro...-dead.html