Switzerland 67.24 1 HI 1 EUR 1
Sweden 63.65 2 HI 2 EUR 2
USA 61.73 3 HI 3 NAC 1
Netherlands 61.44 4 HI 4 EUR 3
United Kingdom 61.30 5 HI 5 EUR 4
Finland 59.83 6 HI 6 EUR 5
Denmark 58.44 7 HI 7 EUR 6
Singapore 58.37 8 HI 8 SEAO 1
Germany 58.19 9 HI 9 EUR 7
Israel 57.43 10 HI 10 NAWA 1
7 out of the top 10 countries are in Europe: https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/gii-2019-report – first and second are both European.Combined European countries have more top 100 science & technology innovation clusters (31) than the US (26) and China (18). That's using data on pages 64 and 65 of the report.
Where in Europe have you been to out of curiosity? I've been to multiple locales in Spain, France, Germany, UK, Switzerland, Poland, Italy, Ireland, Croatia, and Finland – passed through Austria and Slovenia. In fairness I do not know central and eastern Europe very well.
† “The Global Innovation Index (GII) is an annual ranking of countries by their capacity for, and success in, innovation. It is published by Cornell University, INSEAD, and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), in partnership with other organisations and institutions” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Innovation_Index
It was incredibly disruptive, and continues to be so where 90% of servers runs off of it and almost all embedded systems use it.
Are you just trying to troll, or are you trying to rewrite history?
And while linux itself did not construct the open source market, linux + GNU did together strongly reroute the software (syadmin, dev) market towards open source models -- which of course screwed with all tooling development companies dramatically, creating the awkward divergent setup of SaaS w/ subscription vs Enterprise on-prem companies we have today (on-prem for non-enterprise mostly getting covered by OS) -- and that divergence is a pretty clear indicator that some kind of disruption occurred
I assume disruptive means the world would be different without the product.
Similarly, Git not being around wouldn’t change much practically speaking. For all we know, Git won because of Linus. Otherwise other version control were and are similar enough. Mercurial is a prime example for the nascent time period.
OTOH, GitHub changed things. Moved from Sourceforge and in some cases, some of the mailing lists/personally hosted source codes + being part of the reason some open source stopped using some of the popular but in my opinion, kitschy and lackluster bug trackers. GitHub also inspired the copy cat Gitlab project which is now itself a unicorn worth $2B or so. Yes I know Gitlab has differentiators before and even more now. It being very heavily inspired if not lifting from GitHub for parts of it is a point of GitHub’s influence, not a critique of Gitlab.
It isn’t as certain that we would have one such dominant platform like GitHub and the new runner up and alternative of Gitlab if GitHub didn’t exist.
The first full scale fusion reactor: https://www.iter.org/proj/inafewlines
Europe is striving to be the first climate-neutral continent by 2050: https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/euro...
Both of those projects/initiatives “render entire industries obsolete” and “challenge cultural norms on a fundamental level, etc.”
Libertarian capitalism isn't the only source of disruptive innovation. I'd even go so far and say that without government intervention, disruptive innovation cannot be created. In your own example; by forcing technology to be carbon neutral, the EU forces companies to innovate out of well trodden paths and to consider new paradigms that otherwise would be worth cost. LED light technology wouldn't be where it is today without governments forcing out incandescent light bulbs.
As I said, "I guess I'll stay tuned, and maybe change what I said in 30 years once these projects are finished..."
Edit: To your other point about the EU forcing companies to innovate, the reality is that innovation cannot always be forced. The effort could simply fail to achieve its goals, or it may turn out that the technology needed to achieve those goals is not economically viable, etc. It is also possible that the innovation will not actually be disruptive, it may wind up augmenting existing industries and allowing those industries to grow by balancing their carbon emissions with e.g. some kind of carbon capture (powered by existing renewable technologies, avoiding the need for things like base load by being opportunistic with carbon capture), never actually challenging the status quo or enabling anything that would be unthinkable today.
[Where and how people spend their money is the best way of measuring what people really think].
1. The right to be forgotten, which tries to turn back the clock to an earlier age when search engines did not exist.
2. Copyright extremism (yes, there are places where it is worse than the USA) e.g. the EU copright directive.
3. Photography rules, which, unlike the USA, restrict the use of cameras in public and may render selfies illegal in some cases.
4. GDPR
GDPR is fantastic and is forward-thinking.
As for the right to be forgotten, that is nothing more than an attempt to restore yesterday's status quo. The fact is that computers are very good at storing data, indexing that stored data, and finding more data to add to searchable indexes. The only reason this so-called "right" can even be enforced is that the search market is dominated by a single search engine; if that market were more competitive, something that could theoretically happen at any time (and ironically something the EU seems to want to have happen), it would quickly become impossible to actually enforce the "right." Basically this is like the "right to fly around on a broomstick" -- it is not really grounded in reality.