He is a high priest of scientism and not a scientist. I disliked him for years because of that. As for Joe Rogans audience, I bet it's because NdT went hard for vaccinations (and did so in the typical scientism way) and Joe's vocal fans aren't big into hoax flu death juice.Where is this NDT backlash coming from? He was on Joe Rogan recently and the YouTube comments were largely negative. I thought his audience usually liked him.
They’ve shown you can domesticate an animal in decades with intensive breeding specifically for animals that accept humans and excluding those that don’t.
Here's an article with little more sciency depth.If the reporting is true then this is a gigantic breakthrough, particularly because they used lasers and not some gigantic magnetic field like most other prototypes do. Fusion energy is the end game for humanity. No need for coal, oil, gas, wind, or solar. The fuel source is simple seawater because all you need is hydrogen atoms.
So then everyone could sit around all day using their 3d printers to make ghost guns.So how far away are we from the point where "the powers that be" can use fusion, AI, and robotics to make it so that no one ever has to work again? Like within the decade, right? What happens when the people ask them to do it and they say "no! What would all you people DO all day if you didn't work?"
And sex toys.So then everyone could sit around all day using their 3d printers to make ghost guns.
Here's an article with little more sciency depth.
Nature.com: Nuclear-fusion lab achieves 'ignition': what does it mean?.
![]()
Nuclear-fusion lab achieves ‘ignition’: what does it mean?
Researchers at the US National Ignition Facility created a reaction that made more energy than they put in.www.nature.com
However, while the fusion reactions may have produced more than 3 megajoules of energy — more than was delivered to the target — NIF’s 192 lasers consumed 322 megajoules of energy in the process. Still, the experiment qualifies as ignition, a benchmark measure for fusion reactions that focuses on how much energy went into the target compared to how much energy was released.
I remember one article where someone said "you need a x10 ratio - of energy produced to used - to get into the commercially viable range. Under that, it's nifty physics lab stuff."Until someone actually makes a fusion reactor that produces (rather than consumes) power, I don't care. Back in the 70s, they said it would be 30 years for this. Fifty years later, it seems to still be 30 years+ in the future.
Fusion articles are always nothing burgers trying to get views. Especially the ones that try to be exciting.
Ftfy. Under that, it's all just a deep pit that keeps getting filled with government grant money. "
Cool! I saw a paper earlier about a Liouville conception of fractal gravity but I didn't check it out. I think I will have to tho!Coarse-grained modeling - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org