I'm not saying that the company shouldn't pay a direct tax on their profit, but that I want to know the real number counting everything. Focusing on some fraction of that number can be misleading, especially when the editors try to distill it into a short title, with possible agendas no less.

4 decades is not a long time. It is a minuscule amount of time in the grand scheme of things.

Plenty? In what way? There seems to be one company that makes a keyboard phone with outdated CPUs and other hardware, to make ends meet and be able to produce such a phone economically.

So already at this (primitive) iteration of tech there is a device that connects to your brain and helps you do something, something that you would find very useful no less, if your goal is to learn to operate your brain in the best way possible. Now this is even possible with this (primitive) iteration of this tech. The effectiveness is reported by a lot of people, and it is also calibrated on tibetan monks who meditate for a living. There is also a similar institutional device with more thorough processes called "40 years of zen" (but you have to go to a laboratory).

Now imagine what the next iteration would make possible, and for example how good would a device like this be if it could actually read direct signals from the brain instead of having to read them through the skin?

In terms of security, you could solve 80% of problems you mention by a hardware onoff switch, which would cost next to nothing. A large part of rest of the problems could be solved by limiting the information flow into a certain format/context: imagine just a 4K screen inside your mind that you can look at if you wish, but you always know that information comes from that screen and not from somewhere else. Even just such a dumb usage would be tremendous upgrade to humans everywhere. How do we know it won't give you any "thoughts"? Just limit the information flow to pixels. The interface won't even know what information you look at your internal screen, the most mischievous thing it will be able to do is to maybe make things black-and-white, or make something flicker in an annoying manner.

What?? Where exactly in the current world do you see this? It doesn't reflect reality at all...

> Should I tell him about statistics? I’d be heartless if I did.

What?? That's the only actually truthful and objective information you can give to him. How is that "heartless"? You don't need to tell him that in a cold voice and never acknowledge his fears and feelings, you can discuss all that and make him feel better somehow.

But telling someone truthful information - is not heartless, it's one of the best things you can do for them.

What does this have to do with the market? People don't want physical keyboards because they are "used to" them. They want because the experience of typing is different.