I see it more in storytelling terms: the existing hell, the seed of hope, the promised land, the hero's path, the hero made real. It's not so much about the consistency of the storyline itself but instead the emotions which develop in the audience as the story is told.

While I think the steps in the article make emotional sense, I didn't think Elon's powerwall presentation was all that well done. For example the "seed of hope" came across more as a "seed of desperation." He didn't really explain why we're now _able_ to make progress, in a way we haven't been able to in the past. (The audience at Elon's presentation also seemed rather irrationally exuberant, excited for some reason other than presentation itself.)

Not necessarily. I'm not being contrarian for the sake of it. This approach that takes the first third of the time presenting the problem to an audience that arrived to hear the solution to a known problem can sometimes be annoying. It could just as well be done this way:

1. State the problem in a short less than 1 minute summary. 2. Present the solution and sustainability etc (bulk of the presentation) 3. Then, lastly, present the problem that most already know - only this time in detail.

No time or break down was mentioned. That is your imagination.

> For the sake of it.