4 ms·

It’s been getting closer for what, two decades now?

by theappsecguy 2y ago

croes 2y ago
Time for Musk to announce fusion powered self driving cars for next sear
- esskay 2y ago
  Honestly surprised he's not bought/started a company to work on it so he can proudly proclame they've cracked it and it's coming next year on repeat.
- ChocolateGod 2y ago
  If you mean fusion powered from the sun by the means of solar panels installed on roofs that charge your car, he's already achieved that. Far cheaper and more practical.
gjsman-1000 2y ago
> It’s been getting closer for what, two decades now? No reason for pointless cynicism, this is also against the guidelines. Fusion power is like childbirth - yelling at 9 months that it has been 9 months, and is therefore never arriving, would be delusional.
- mort96 2y ago
  Weird analogy but to work with it: if someone has been shouting that they're about to give birth any moment now since the 1950s, forgive me for being a bit skeptical when they say "but no really I mean it this time".
- bitcharmer 2y ago
  [dead]
zabzonk 2y ago
since the late 1950s
- acidburnNSA 2y ago
  Very true. The 1958 Atoms for Peace conference prominently featured big fusion exhibits expecting breakthroughs soon.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> It’s been getting closer for what, two decades now? This is low effort. Are you arguing we haven’t made material progress in the last twenty years? Material science advances in magnets alone should raise your curiosity to not have to wait for a packaged consumer product to notice advancement.
- wongarsu 2y ago
  Tbf, the title is kind of low effort too. Of course fusion is getting closer. We all know that at least some people are working on it, the default assumption is that they make some progress. This has been the state of fusion for the last couple decades. Arguably there has been a time when fusion got further away (compared to predictions) because of reduced interest and funding. But I'd agree that for the last two decades you could print the headline "fusion is getting closer" at any time, and it would always be true. Maybe that's just me ranting about how titles have shifted from trying to inform you and distill the essence of a news article to just trying to get you to read the article. It's really a comment on journalism rather than fusion.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > We all know that at least some people are working on it, the default assumption is that they make some progress This is a terrible assumption when it comes to basic research. > that for the last two decades you could print the headline "fusion is getting closer" at any time, and it would always be true What are you basing this on?There have been a few discrete steps forward. In between, ideas and experiments. > really a comment on journalism rather than fusion Can you quote the line from the article that renders the title misleading?
    - wongarsu 2y ago
      > This is a terrible assumption when it comes to basic research. Even trying out things that don't work is progress, since it narrows the space of possible solutions. The only ways to really set back progress would be by getting others to believe something that's untrue, for example by faking research. You could manage to not advance the field by not publishing a finding and leaving the field. You can slow progress for example by popularizing a path that doesn't lead anywhere, discouraging people from going down the right path, or just reducing popularity or funding of the field. But slowing progress doesn't erase progress. If you do genuine work and at least talk about it with colleagues on a conference that's advancing the field. > What are you basing this on? The classic graph everyone uses would be 1, which shows consistent progress over ~40 years. It's a bit out of date now, but I assume the trend has held since then. > Can you quote the line from the article that renders the title misleading? I didn't call it misleading, I called it lazy and uninformative. A (mild) form of clickbait, because it merely hints at information without providing any. My English teacher would have deducted points for that title. 1: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Progress-to-Date-in-Achieving-Conditions-Required-for-Fusion-Energy_fig1_335586712 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Progress-to-Date-in-Achi...
adastra22 2y ago
It’s been 30 years away for half a century. Then it was 20 years away for the last few decades. Now it is 10 years away. We’re making progress!

It’s been getting closer for what, two decades now?

croes 2y ago

Time for Musk to announce fusion powered self driving cars for next sear

esskay 2y ago
Honestly surprised he's not bought/started a company to work on it so he can proudly proclame they've cracked it and it's coming next year on repeat.
ChocolateGod 2y ago
If you mean fusion powered from the sun by the means of solar panels installed on roofs that charge your car, he's already achieved that. Far cheaper and more practical.

gjsman-1000 2y ago

> It’s been getting closer for what, two decades now? No reason for pointless cynicism, this is also against the guidelines. Fusion power is like childbirth - yelling at 9 months that it has been 9 months, and is therefore never arriving, would be delusional.

mort96 2y ago
Weird analogy but to work with it: if someone has been shouting that they're about to give birth any moment now since the 1950s, forgive me for being a bit skeptical when they say "but no really I mean it this time".
bitcharmer 2y ago
[dead]

zabzonk 2y ago

since the late 1950s

acidburnNSA 2y ago
Very true. The 1958 Atoms for Peace conference prominently featured big fusion exhibits expecting breakthroughs soon.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> It’s been getting closer for what, two decades now? This is low effort. Are you arguing we haven’t made material progress in the last twenty years? Material science advances in magnets alone should raise your curiosity to not have to wait for a packaged consumer product to notice advancement.

wongarsu 2y ago
Tbf, the title is kind of low effort too. Of course fusion is getting closer. We all know that at least some people are working on it, the default assumption is that they make some progress. This has been the state of fusion for the last couple decades. Arguably there has been a time when fusion got further away (compared to predictions) because of reduced interest and funding. But I'd agree that for the last two decades you could print the headline "fusion is getting closer" at any time, and it would always be true. Maybe that's just me ranting about how titles have shifted from trying to inform you and distill the essence of a news article to just trying to get you to read the article. It's really a comment on journalism rather than fusion.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > We all know that at least some people are working on it, the default assumption is that they make some progress This is a terrible assumption when it comes to basic research. > that for the last two decades you could print the headline "fusion is getting closer" at any time, and it would always be true What are you basing this on?There have been a few discrete steps forward. In between, ideas and experiments. > really a comment on journalism rather than fusion Can you quote the line from the article that renders the title misleading?
  - wongarsu 2y ago
    > This is a terrible assumption when it comes to basic research. Even trying out things that don't work is progress, since it narrows the space of possible solutions. The only ways to really set back progress would be by getting others to believe something that's untrue, for example by faking research. You could manage to not advance the field by not publishing a finding and leaving the field. You can slow progress for example by popularizing a path that doesn't lead anywhere, discouraging people from going down the right path, or just reducing popularity or funding of the field. But slowing progress doesn't erase progress. If you do genuine work and at least talk about it with colleagues on a conference that's advancing the field. > What are you basing this on? The classic graph everyone uses would be 1, which shows consistent progress over ~40 years. It's a bit out of date now, but I assume the trend has held since then. > Can you quote the line from the article that renders the title misleading? I didn't call it misleading, I called it lazy and uninformative. A (mild) form of clickbait, because it merely hints at information without providing any. My English teacher would have deducted points for that title. 1: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Progress-to-Date-in-Achieving-Conditions-Required-for-Fusion-Energy_fig1_335586712 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Progress-to-Date-in-Achi...

adastra22 2y ago

It’s been 30 years away for half a century. Then it was 20 years away for the last few decades. Now it is 10 years away. We’re making progress!