> Since the decommissioning of the Concorde, our fastest commercial means of transportation has actually been getting slower, not faster.
Our means of travel have also gotten vastly more efficient.
Prioritizing progress in average efficiency over speed of a showpiece that is used for a very small share of actual travel isn't the end of progress, and it is very much change in the world of atoms, not bits.
It has gotten twice as cheap (if you look at average ticket prices adjusted to inflation) from 70 to now. Also point about concorde - it's more fuel efficient to fly slower (look at drag coefficient [1])
So from point of view of affordability and mobility for general public - it's good progress.
>It has gotten twice as cheap (if you look at average ticket prices adjusted to inflation) from 70 to now.
Which is consistent with the gp's point that progress has slowed down.
It had gotten 100 to 1000 times cheaper, faster, more efficient to e.g. travel intercontinentally between the 1900 to 1970 that it has between 1970 to now.
Our means of travel have also gotten vastly more efficient.
Prioritizing progress in average efficiency over speed of a showpiece that is used for a very small share of actual travel isn't the end of progress, and it is very much change in the world of atoms, not bits.