[TheOtherHobbes]

That's because this breakthrough is being sold - from a dull business and product oriented perspective - as an incredible etc etc which makes a new kind of product more likely.

No one is shitting on the research itself. But the PR around this story has carpet bombed sci-comm as a potential practical energy source. Not as basic research.

So it's perfectly reasonable to ask if there's a there from a commercial POV. And to note out that currently there really isn't.

If they really had announced a viable commercial product everyone here would be cheering.

[skelpmargyar]

I don't see one part of the article that sold this from a dull business and product oriented perspective or any unreasonable sci-fi nonsense. They only explained some of some people's future goals of fusion. Not necessarily even the goals of this program. You can't ask about a commercial POV of something that likely isn't even close to existing. Think past the damn business perspective! It's science! This is Hacker News not Shark Tank! It's like asking what is the commercial POV of lake houses on Titan. It's just ridiculous. One step at a time.

The comment I replied to stated "Better to focus on standardised production lines for small fission reactors." To you, is that not shitting on the research? It implies the only purpose for this research is for power generation. And that it is clearly inferior to small fission reactors for that purpose, when the technology doesn't even exist yet. It just diminishes the accomplishment as a whole. It's so short sighted from a group of people who's jobs only came to existence <100 years ago.