content: I skimmed quite a bit too, but it really did feel like he was diminishing or deprecating the advancements and optimizations from recent years. Oh yeah, the 1800s guy will be blown away by a refrigerator, but hand the 50s guy a smartphone, meh! Not to mention that he (as far as I remember) completely skipped the moon landing, and severely diminished the effects of interconnectivity, starting with message groups, all the way through to platforms like this. Plus, he should make distinctions of who he'd show new tech too. Get Charles Babbage or Ada Lovelace and they'd have little problems working with the sophisticated adding machines of the 50s, after a time to catch up with the tech. Same with cutting edge guys from the 50s, they wouldn't be blown away by modern tech after becoming acclimated. Take a pleb from the 1800s and yes, the 50s would seem grand. But take a farmhand from the 50s and put him on a modern farm and see the same level of wonder and amazement. It's everything they've seen, on a larger more optimized scale, along with a handful of new tech that lets the rest work together more efficiently. That's the real progress that the author willfully dismisses. None of this addresses miniaturization or optimization. Automobiles may look functionally similar to the 50s counterparts. But ask that 50s guy to check under the hood. That's where the progress is, just out of sight of seemingly antiquated tech.