4 ms·
It means we are closer to success when we see a lot more VC funding of nuclear fusion versus government (taxpayer) funding. VCs don't have the timeline or abili
by bloodyplonker22 4y ago
It means we are closer to success when we see a lot more VC funding of nuclear fusion versus government (taxpayer) funding. VCs don't have the timeline or ability to lose money without much consequence or blame like the government does.
- acidburnNSA 4y agoIt could also mean there are lots more rich people who want to spend money on a gamble to "save the world" and don't care to do sufficient due diligence to dig below the fancy slide decks they get spoon fed in the board room every quarter.
- lven 4y agoYou're better off donating money to fusion companies directly than paying taxes to the government. Wish musk had donated his taxesto companies last year instead.
- ClumsyPilot 4y agoIf VC's are so great, they could have invested in fusion 20 years ago and presumably they'd have it solved by now. Why didn't they? They didn't because they don't have the guts to create entire new branch of science. Once the government has built research laboratiries, trained physicists and engineers, built prototypes, waited untill those engineers come up with viables plans, then the VC are ready to swoop in and take all the credit. Thats fine if Venture capital can't make 60 year investments. Whats not cool, is everyone else buying the narrative that we don't need government funding for fundamental research, that VCs will solve all problems in the world as long as we let them run wild and don't tax them