[essayist]

This is part of the reason that it can take so long to comprehend a genuinely innovative new technology: it doesn't win the game that's being played -- it plays a different game entirely.

Yes! Another way to say this: would-be innovators often fail or are delayed because the game they perceive is not the game being played. In aerospace, as you point out, we ought to change the game.

In other situations, say nutrition, we shouldn't (or at least I won't). E.g. Soylent sees the "game" as "get nutrition with minimal muss/fuss", whereas I prefer to see it as "enjoy experimenting with food prep and then consume with friends".

Missing the "game" perspective, the article too much boils down to "people are stupid", and that's not a winning perspective if you're trying to drive technology adoption.