4 ms·

Don't take it too personally, but you, and many others here, need to rethink their approach. You see a short tweet without context about a topic you clearly kno

Don't take it too personally, but you, and many others here, need to rethink their approach. You see a short tweet without context about a topic you clearly know nothing about (which is totally, fully okay, it's a complex topic), and think you are now able to criticize milestones in this impossibly complex topic. Not even ask questions, not something like "hey, I saw this tweet, I know it's just a tweet, but can someone help me understand context?", no, you actually go ahead and criticize work that you know nothing about, and when confronted, you double down. On some level, you must know yourself that it might be better to ask as many unloaded questions as you want, but otherwise sit this one out in terms of assessment.

sillysaurusx 4y ago
No thanks. I get that people are emotional about this, but it’s important to treat science with a critical eye. The claim is that more energy came out than was put in. This is false. It’s not just me saying it. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRVP5Pmg/ https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRVP5Pmg/ There is no “context” to understand. Yes, it’s an impressive feat. Yes, other laser designs might fix the huge ignition costs. But that hasn’t happened yet, and until it does, it’s completely fair to point that out. Will it win me any friends? Probably not. It’s like showing up to a party and saying the reason for the party is mistaken. Very few people care. But scientists should, and I am one. Doubly so for incorrect reporting to laymen. We have a responsibility to convey what was actually achieved, not what we wish was achieved.
- boc 4y ago
  - sillysaurusx 4y ago
    Which criticism am I dismissing? People do seem to be getting emotional about fusion, and pointing that out is hardly edgy. Once fusion achieves more output than input, I’ll be celebrating right there with you. But until then, ignoring the Doberman in the room is a worse look, from a scientific standpoint. I even cited a source from someone with a phd in mathematical physics, who is likely far more qualified to be talking about this than most of us here. So in terms of dismissing criticism, the stack seems to be in the other direction. Scientific reporting matters. Reporting something false is generally a bad idea. Saying “we got more energy out than we put in” is false. Which link in this chain of reasoning is invalid?
    - twojacobtwo 4y ago
      > It just seems a little strange to take credit for a milestone when the milestone everyone cares about is yet to be reached. (More energy out than in.) That comment/criticism is a little strange in and of itself. I would say it's the oddness or seeming petulance of the above comment that brought on boc's comment. A silly, but illustrative analogy: Kid: Dad, look! I scored a home-run! Father: Who cares? Have you won the game yet? Stop celebrating until you do something that everyone cares about!
      - geysersam 4y ago
        There's a difference between encouraging a kid and discussing energy technology. It's entirely valid to remark that fusion still is far from viable as a source of energy.
        twojacobtwo 4y ago
        I agree. To explain further, my post and the included (noted silly) analogy were made with respect to explaining the aspect of sillysaurusx's post(s) that boc seemed to be criticizing.
  - LarryMullins 4y ago
    Your "honest feedback" is nothing more than naked insults. Sillysaurusx is right. The "impossibly complex" matter is actually quite simple, Q=1 is little more than a psychological milestone, not some sort of technical tipping point where further progress becomes easier. And they haven't even gotten to Q=1 unless you buy into the justifications they give for dodgy accounting of the energy they put into it. The "impossibly complex" matter of commercial fusion is actually quite simple, it needs to put out a lot more energy than you put into it after you fully account for all the energy you put in. They aren't even close to this.
    - twojacobtwo 4y ago
      Just as a note, since I made the same mistake initially, the person you're replying to didn't make the post from which you are quoting "impossibly complex". It seems, to me, that boc was criticizing the unnecessarily dour tone of sillysaurusx's previous comment and not the technical aspect of the achievement. The whole thing seems to come down to whether one interprets the announcement as an attempt to deceive the public at large or simply a celebration of a milestone that many in the fusion research community have been trying to achieve for a long time. I can understand it being interpreted both ways, but I think the more charitable interpretation is that science reporting, in general, doesn't usually properly explain the levels of nuance of various achievements and, as such, something that is genuinely exciting for those in the community is not necessarily as exciting for those outside of it - which comes across as deceptive.
    - boc 4y ago
      When a baseball batter hits a ball at a record 120mph, you calculate the impulse of force (∆p) they put into the swing to cause that result, not the total calories the player consumed during the past year in order to build their muscles. You're arguing that the process of charging some inefficient lasers (aka eating food throughout the year) is invalidating this entire result. That was never part of the experiment, nor is it relevant to this test. I understand exactly what you wrote above, and I'm telling you that it's not relevant to this discovery. You're arguing a non-sequitur in the classic definition.
    - geysersam 4y ago

sillysaurusx 4y ago

No thanks. I get that people are emotional about this, but it’s important to treat science with a critical eye. The claim is that more energy came out than was put in. This is false. It’s not just me saying it. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRVP5Pmg/ https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRVP5Pmg/ There is no “context” to understand. Yes, it’s an impressive feat. Yes, other laser designs might fix the huge ignition costs. But that hasn’t happened yet, and until it does, it’s completely fair to point that out. Will it win me any friends? Probably not. It’s like showing up to a party and saying the reason for the party is mistaken. Very few people care. But scientists should, and I am one. Doubly so for incorrect reporting to laymen. We have a responsibility to convey what was actually achieved, not what we wish was achieved.

boc 4y ago
- sillysaurusx 4y ago
  Which criticism am I dismissing? People do seem to be getting emotional about fusion, and pointing that out is hardly edgy. Once fusion achieves more output than input, I’ll be celebrating right there with you. But until then, ignoring the Doberman in the room is a worse look, from a scientific standpoint. I even cited a source from someone with a phd in mathematical physics, who is likely far more qualified to be talking about this than most of us here. So in terms of dismissing criticism, the stack seems to be in the other direction. Scientific reporting matters. Reporting something false is generally a bad idea. Saying “we got more energy out than we put in” is false. Which link in this chain of reasoning is invalid?
  - twojacobtwo 4y ago
    > It just seems a little strange to take credit for a milestone when the milestone everyone cares about is yet to be reached. (More energy out than in.) That comment/criticism is a little strange in and of itself. I would say it's the oddness or seeming petulance of the above comment that brought on boc's comment. A silly, but illustrative analogy: Kid: Dad, look! I scored a home-run! Father: Who cares? Have you won the game yet? Stop celebrating until you do something that everyone cares about!
    - geysersam 4y ago
      There's a difference between encouraging a kid and discussing energy technology. It's entirely valid to remark that fusion still is far from viable as a source of energy.
      - twojacobtwo 4y ago
        I agree. To explain further, my post and the included (noted silly) analogy were made with respect to explaining the aspect of sillysaurusx's post(s) that boc seemed to be criticizing.
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  Your "honest feedback" is nothing more than naked insults. Sillysaurusx is right. The "impossibly complex" matter is actually quite simple, Q=1 is little more than a psychological milestone, not some sort of technical tipping point where further progress becomes easier. And they haven't even gotten to Q=1 unless you buy into the justifications they give for dodgy accounting of the energy they put into it. The "impossibly complex" matter of commercial fusion is actually quite simple, it needs to put out a lot more energy than you put into it after you fully account for all the energy you put in. They aren't even close to this.
  - twojacobtwo 4y ago
    Just as a note, since I made the same mistake initially, the person you're replying to didn't make the post from which you are quoting "impossibly complex". It seems, to me, that boc was criticizing the unnecessarily dour tone of sillysaurusx's previous comment and not the technical aspect of the achievement. The whole thing seems to come down to whether one interprets the announcement as an attempt to deceive the public at large or simply a celebration of a milestone that many in the fusion research community have been trying to achieve for a long time. I can understand it being interpreted both ways, but I think the more charitable interpretation is that science reporting, in general, doesn't usually properly explain the levels of nuance of various achievements and, as such, something that is genuinely exciting for those in the community is not necessarily as exciting for those outside of it - which comes across as deceptive.
  - boc 4y ago
    When a baseball batter hits a ball at a record 120mph, you calculate the impulse of force (∆p) they put into the swing to cause that result, not the total calories the player consumed during the past year in order to build their muscles. You're arguing that the process of charging some inefficient lasers (aka eating food throughout the year) is invalidating this entire result. That was never part of the experiment, nor is it relevant to this test. I understand exactly what you wrote above, and I'm telling you that it's not relevant to this discovery. You're arguing a non-sequitur in the classic definition.
  - geysersam 4y ago