My first guess was it was some sort of mask made to look like Ruth Bader Ginsburg or had miniature versions of her face on it.

In the case of both quantum computing and commercial fusion reactors we're making progress pretty rapidly. A major reason that fusion has been so slow compared to some predictions is that simply put, the amount of funding for it has been well below projections. See https://www.reddit.com/r/energy/comments/5budos/fusion_is_always_50_years_away_for_a_reason/?onetap_auto=true&one_tap=true#lightbox this graph. But the fusion situation is getting better, and rapidly. The triple product, a useful way of measuring how close a fusion reactor is to being self-sustaining has shown major improvement the last few years and it continues to get better https://www.fusionenergybase.com/article/measuring-progress-in-fusion-energy-the-triple-products Better computer modeling of what is happening in reactors, as well as better superconductors have helped a lot. And there's another large-scale change with fusion reactors which that we're starting to see a lot more private investment. Now, some of that is clearly due to hype, but a lot of it looks promising, and also helps show that the tech is getting to the point where it has some decent chance. If fusion fails to be commercially viable the most likely way that will happen is that by the time it would be otherwise viable, it will be competing with just really efficient solar and wind which are showing drastic improvements in cost the last few years.

For quantum computers the situation is not as good. But there's still clear improvements the last few years in at least three major respects. First, there's been major improvements on quantum error corrections. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_error_correction Due to the inherent noisiness of quantum computers due to stray particles and the like, quantum error correction is really important. But the early error correction algorithms were just not that good. One of the first discovered was Shor's code which required 9 extra qubits for each logical qubit. But that was replaced with the CSS code which was much more efficient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSS_code, and subsequent codes are even more efficient or allow one to play with tradeoffs. Second, we're much better at keeping qubits entangled with many others or for long periods of time. See for example, https://www.newscientist.com/article/2382022-record-breaking-number-of-qubits-entangled-in-a-quantum-computer/ Third, and closely connected to 1 and 2, there are now real demonstrations of CSS and similar approaches on physical qubits. See e.g. discussion here https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=7651.

It does not seem like either of these techs is going to be practical for a few years yet. But there's clear progress in both and at a rapid rate.

Thank you for missing the point and not actually addressing it. What that shows is that yes, there is a point where Israel will use its nuclear arsenal. Congratulations; that's true for every country with nukes. The point you are not addressing is that they've had many opportunities to use their nukes where they have not. Care to actually address that?

That's pretty obviously false given that Israel has not used those nukes. They've had repeated opportunities to nuke targets in Gaza, or nuke targets in Syria and Iran and have not done so. That shows that your second half of your sentence is pretty obviously false.

The show was entertaining. It was not as good as Next Gent or DS9 as its height, and a few parts felt more Star Wars than Star Trek, but overall it is very well done. One should not skip it just because it is labeled as a kids-show. I suggest giving it at least the first few episodes.

Boeing's problems have very little to do with DEI. The primary problems came from when Boeing merged with the then struggling McDonnel Douglas and somehow the MD management ended up almost completely in charge. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/01/boeing-737-max-corporate-culture/677120/. They even moved the corporate headquarters to be deliberately further away from the factories and engineers. So what was once one of the most engineering focused of businesses became completely business focused.

Construction cost is not the main problem. The main problem is that regulation has made it almost impossible to build new housing at a reasonable speed. This has gotten to the point where a few years ago when an apartment building burned down in Allston (a Boston suburb) it took years just to get the permits to rebuild the existing building. This is part of a much wider problem in the US where building rules, construction rules, zoning, etc. all has combined very badly.

Journals don't have their own labs. Other labs are supposed to replicate research claims, not journals. Also, a major part of the system is the assumption in reviewing that scientists may be mistaken, but they aren't engaging in deliberate fraud. If reviewers were expect to somehow detect that and look for it every single time, refereeing (which is already a pretty thankless task) would become nearly impossible. And when this does happen, it eventually gets found out. If there is a solution here, it is to have more serious repercussions for faking results than there are.

Note that Dias is a different researcher than the group involved with LK-99 that made headlines over the summer. In the case of Dias, his claims involved alleged superconductors that only superconducted at extremely high pressures. This made duplicating his work extremely difficult. In contrast, the LK-99 claim was about room temp superconductors at standard temperature and pressure. Note also that LK-99 turned out not to be valid, and most of what they say likely due to the heterogeneity of their samples, there's no claim that they engaged in misconduct. They were just wrong.

For some of them yes, but not for others. They are called spigot algorithms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spigot_algorithm. Often a constant will have a nice one for certain specific bases.

There's a legitimate use of legacy admissions. Legacy admission fosters institutional loyalty, and promotes alumni giving. The more alumni give, the more money there is for all sorts of things including scholarships. Whether legacy admissions create more good than harm seems tougher to say, and at the various colleges I've taught at, I encountered some real doofus legacy students. But there's a reasonable interest in having some form of that is worth acknowledging.

When I was young people derisively said that fusion was always 25 years away. In the last 10 years people have been saying similarly that fusion is always 10 years away. That suggests that progress has happened, but not as fast as proponents predicted/hope.

That something can happen in a lab environment is a demonstration of how it can happen in nature given enough time and lots of options. Given millions of years, there's a lot of time for things to happen. And further research will likely find even more plausible ways this could end up happening. Heck, humans made nuclear reactors, but even that turns up in nature by sheer accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... .

A partial solution for this is to have a law that if one is getting a tax writeoff this way then one has to give up the copyright on the media and release a copy of the media in some easily accessible fashion.

In this case, there's no better disposal method.