BalderSion

In my experience the community will usually distinguished between "scientific Q" and "wall plug Q" when discussing fusion power gain. Scientific is simply the ratio of power in vs power out, whereas wall plug includes all the power required to support scientific Q. Obviously the difference isn't always clearly delineated or reported when talking to journalists...

OK, so we should be clear there are broadly two approaches to fusion: magnetic confinement and inertial drive.

In magnetic confinement a plasma is confined such that it can be driven to sufficient density, temperature and particle confinement time that the thermal collisions allow the fuel to fuse. This is what the OP article is talking about. This Tokamak is demonstrating technologies that if applied to a larger the experiment could probably reach a positive energy output magnetically confined plasma.

The article you referenced discusses inertial drive experiments, where a driver is directly pushing the fuel together, like gravity in the sun, a fission bomb shockwave in a hydrogen bomb, or converging laser beams in Livermore's case.

Livermore's result is exciting, but has no bearing on the various magnetic confinement approaches to fusion energy.

I've been using Here we go for years. I think it started as a Nokia project, that spun off to it's own thing. I started using to conserve data. You download the map of your region when you have Wi-Fi, and it's pretty low data load from there, directions and traffic updates mostly. I've been happy with it for a long time. I haven't opened g-maps in ages. I know there are other options out there, open source and what not, but I never felt the need to try anything else out.

Something like this wiki page? There are some good charts showing trends at this site. That site also gives more context if you're interested in digging.

For ages I've wanted to run a Friar Tuck themed drunken master style of Monk. In the right group and setting it could be loads of fun.

I've read it. Many times from many outlets reporting on more than one survey. The first time I found it comforting.

However it's not hard to find conflicting data. Methodology determines outcomes of these surveys, every time.

Today I'm less comforted. But ultimately, for what it's worth, I don't think we're that far apart.

I've become pretty skeptical we know where the majority is. The question determines the outcome of the survey. The measuring stick is flawed and error bars are many times larger than the difference being measured. Frankly, the thing being measured has more dimensions than are being measured.

And it's worth remembering how the party got here. The left and labor coalition failed to beat Nixon twice, Ford's losing had little to do with the left, and it utterly fell apart against Reagan. The Democrats only started to get traction at the national level by going to the center, using the DLC playbook. I'm as angry about the abandonment of labor by the Democratic party as anyone, but the reason for it is not a mystery. By the same token if the left doesn't build the structure for a more left leaning Democratic party to operate no one should expect the party to move.

The hard thing is, I don't know what that structure looks like, but it's not enough to be "correct".

Well then, our troubles are deeper than we know.

On the right as long as you talk a good game on lowering taxes they'll put aside any and all espoused convictions. See how quiet the Libertarians got when Roe v. Wade was overturned. Turns out any time I spent debating the preeminence of personal liberty and the NAP was a big fat waste of my time. Alas.

On the left we have an electorate that "...would rather be right than president," and it turns out they get to be neither.

I keep ruminating on this argument, and it gives me deeply split feelings.

On one hand I keep thinking, voters need to grow up. Voting is how the populace gets to engage in self governance, i.e. politics, and as the aphorism goes, Politics is the art of choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable. Things that are easy aren't solved by politics, and the voters need to accept that you're often not going to get what you want and in governance you often have to settle for choosing the thing you hate the least.

On the other hand, I keep thinking I'm making the classic leftist mistake of demanding everyone should do what I think is right, because I am right, and then being frustrated when my rightness isn't blindingly obvious to everyone.

Like the lady says, It's like rain on your wedding day...

In the 80's and 90's there was strong undercurrent that activism couldn't actually change anything. It was the end of history, all outcomes are and always were inevitable, voting with dollars was the only vote that really matters. Hippy punching was in it's full flower. Environmentalism was seen as self indulgent and meaningless. "Save the whales," was spit out as a sort of, 'go waste someone else's time,' dismissal.

The 4th Dilbert collection from 94' was Shave the Whales, which already struck me as a passe gesture at hippy punching at the time, though I couldn't tell if Scott Adams was engaging in hippy punching or mocking the hippy punchers.

This is a good video on the subject

That is not an uncommon guess, but the argument against it is that these took some sophistication to make. This isn't some disposable gewgaw. These were made with relatively tight tolerances and exhibited the best metalworking fabrication of the age. One theory I've seen seriously floated was that they were made as a demonstration of metal working competency, the equivalent of a benchy in 3D printing.