4 ms·
I think OP's point is that they're trying to think adversarially about whether such incentives exist, not implying that they actually do. It's a good thought ex
by eganist 3y ago
I think OP's point is that they're trying to think adversarially about whether such incentives exist, not implying that they actually do. It's a good thought experiment with a claim this large - to see how the claimant would benefit if they're fibbing, I mean.
- blitzar 3y agoSurely it is redundant as they considered and came to a conclusion on this topic months ago when "US scientists confirm ‘major breakthrough’ in nuclear fusion"
- Zarathustra30 3y agoThat one's pretty standard. When the lab is about to run out of money, they fluff up an incremental improvement as a 'major breakthrough'. No false claims or fake science involved.