> You're arguing there's an interplay between the public and private sector. That's true. But you would be hard-pressed to find an example of a major core tech that developed independently of significant government investment

I'm not sure about the history, but perhaps the internal combustion engine?

More generally, the line of reasoning in this thread assumes "this is how things have happened" to imply "this is the _only_ way things can happen". It is entirely conceivable that the private sector would, in the absense of government funding, step up and perform/fund fundamental research. But, in the current fiscal climate where there is still, generally speaking, copious government funding available (e.g., to the military), why would a private group spend money to do that when they can let someone else (the government) take the risk (with someone else's money).