If you start to innovate by first trying to identify a problem, then with enough investigation, you'll find out that the problem hasn't been solved yet for darned good reasons. There's often a topic that gets discussed along the lines of Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court: What could you "invent" to change the world if you suddenly found yourself trapped a few centuries in the past?
Lots of knowitall people will show up and claim things like they'd be able to build a working steam-engine in the early iron-age. But no, even among talented engineers, most of them couldn't. And it's not just because they don't remember how to build one; it's because the state of metal fabrication was such that you wouldn't be able to afford the sheet metal needed to make the boiler; and even if you could; there's a good chance you'd have a boiler explosion. Also, you'd need to build a decently high precision metal lathe; which again, would require massive resources.
To solve something, you need a problem, you need a solution that will actually work (which is an uncertainty until you've implemented the solution), and you need the resources, either acquired by yourself, or someone who you've convinced to invest in your idea to both pay for the resources needed to make the solution, and that includes enough money to cover your basic survival needs while implementation takes place.
So, finding a solvable problem is hard, knowing the solution to the problem is hard, the implementation is usually hard, because it tends to involve unknowns, and finding backing is hard. Compare that to a company willing to pay you enough money to buy a house and raise a family for doing something useless like re-implementing Candy-crush so that it works on your smart-fridge. So some people choose comfort, some choose to fight the good fight. Among those people, some of them have selected a problem that will be solved better by someone else, or a problem that isn't nearly as big of a problem in the world as they though. Some people will have a solution that turns out to fail. Some will have a working solution that depends on an innovation that won't exist for decades to come. Some people will have a great problem and a working solution, but they can never communicate their ideas to someone to the extent that they are willing to back the endeavor.
So yeah, we aren't solving important stuff because pretty much by its very nature, important stuff is Hard to fix, or it would've already been fixed.
"Study debunks theory that self-driving cars will make people more productive" in big bold letters at the top. No. This study doesn't do that at all.
You are trying to sensationalize to get views, Daily Mail. This should not be encouraged; not here at least. Slashdot's reader base is smarter than this shit.
Two percent of zero is almost nothing.