>> "I guess any disruptiv startup not born in california or the US is unusual."

Seriously? You really think disruptive startups made outside the US are unusual?

I think that is a reasonable assumption given the data over the past century. I wouldn't view such a statement as a value judgement, but instead as a (possible) interpretation of the facts... The US has a disproportionate share of innovation relative to the rest of the world. Nassim Taleb (originally from Lebanon and educated in both the US and Europe) suggests that this is due to greater tolerance of failure in the US, as opposed to greater risk aversion on the part of other countries.

Note: I'm not passing judgement either way, but I wanted to point out that the idea that the US is more innovative/disruptive is not at all an extreme claim and is in fact one made by many others.

I do, yes. By unusual i mean statistically. Of course there are great innovative people everywhere, but it seems like the US managed to be exceptionnaly good at having the right combinination of top level university, venture capitalism, and market size, that enable groundbrealink technologies become successful commercialy.

I think it's your choice of word that's wrong. Silicon Valley obviously produces many more disruptive technologies than the rest of the world but that doesn't make it unusual to see something from another country disrupt. Silicon Valley is unusual in that everything is so concentrated allowing a high output. The rest of the world is NORMAL :) It's also important to remember a lot of the people doing great things in Silicon Valley aren't from the US.