It was my statement, and it was a reply to the previous unsupported assertion which I quoted here.

> It's quite clear that he states that what is presented as new technology is completely made up nonsense.

Yes.

> He may be right, but he needs to show what in the article is completely made up nonsense so that we know if he is.

There is jack shit in the article supporting the existence or likelihood of "new technology". It's window dressing, a PR release with no meat or bones promising a bright and spotless future out of essentially nothing. It has as much technological content as Blindsight, Altered Carbon, or I, Robot. Possibly less.