I appreciate that I didn't give much context to my comments, and what I was thinking. To elaborate, I was amazed and in awe of Stanford and Ovshinsky, whom I hadn't previously heard of, and I assumed that anyone would feel a great indebtedness to him. I was particularly struck by not only what he invented, but the way he lived his life, and his determination to subvert injustice and inequality in a number of ways.

The point of my comment (in my own thinking) was not cynicism, nor even a disbelief of the impact his inventions would have on poverty, but an interest in the mechanics of the relationship between his inventiveness and his commitment to fight inequality and poverty. Perhaps he was incredibly far-sighted and visionary in being able to see how his inventions would have a significant impact on poverty in the long run, and it would be fascinating to see the intermediate steps he saw that would lead to that. Or maybe he thought his inventions would impact poverty in a trickle down way. Or maybe he simply had a sense of faith that if he invented as best he could, it would one day have an impact that even he couldn't imagine.

I would love to understand how best to join up inventive ideas with a commitment to end poverty and injustice. And I imagine Stanford Ovshinsky is a great model in that, but I felt like that one little statement from the original article left me hanging a little bit, and wanting more. I had hoped that the HN community could fill in with a few more ideas, or even details from Ovshinsky's life that would be further enlightening.

My apologies if I came across as disrespectful to a man who is clearly a hero and an inspiration - that was never my intention.