The specific impulse of a fusion drive is expected to be several hundred times that of a chemical rocket, and "maximum speed" for a rocket is proportional to the specific impulse.

Nearer term advanced engines, i.e. ones that have working prototypes or even production examples, are in the 10-100x range. That takes a trip to Saturn from 12 years to between a month and a year. Or a few days for a hypothetical fusion drive.

The Chief Commerical Officer is becoming the Chief Officer of the commercial division! Amazing changes.

"Interperitoneal perfusion" means they injected directly into the abdominal cavity, for an ovarian tumor. That's generally classified as surgery. It's not an IV, and would only work on specific kinds of tumor. And it's one very experimental patient. AND if it worked well, and you did a proper trial, you could patent it.

Scientists haven't lost interest. They're still publishing papers on the topic. You linked to some of them!

Your thesis is the tired old conspiracy theory that drug companies aren't interest in the research "because it's not patentable." But it is patentable, if someone ever comes up with something that actually works.

Lol. You're not a scientist.

"Expected" means mean. The OP said expected lifespan has doubled, which is correct.

Your claim that it's "a trick" and "misleading" because most of the effect is due to a lot fewer dead babies is, frankly, fucking horrifying.

Part of that is due to stricter regulations

Engines falling off aren't really acceptable these days.

I love Teams. It crashes whenever I turn on video so I have an excellent excuse not to turn on video. Combine that with turning off the audio as a courtesy to the speaker and you can actually get something useful done.

The article seems to be a dumb-as-a-rock attempt to cash in on the semi-annual time change bitch fest. The actual paper is about LIGO's sensitivity varying over time. That's pretty straightforward: when there's more noise-causing human activity going on around the detectors they're less sensitive. Noise-causing human activity has "clear differences between weekends and weekdays, between day and night (at the sites), and even between daylight-savings and standard time."

This is part of the problem. Your links are all to interesting pre-clinical work in petrie dishes or injecting mice. You can't just eat baking soda and cure your cancer. You also can't just inject it. Doing either of those things in the quanity required to affect a tumor would overwhelm your body's homeostasis and you'd die too.

If you actually read those papers, the more advanced ones (i.e. in living mice instead of cell cultures) are looking at ways to deliver sodium bicarbonate or other agents to the tumor safely. E.g. by encasing nanoparticles in lipid carriers. That is absolutely patentable.

The subtleties are beyond most people's knowledge or attention span though. "Baking soda cures cancer" and "evil drug company conspiracy" is going to trump

Mice administered bicarbonate-loaded liposomes reached an intra-tumor pH value of 7.38±0.04. Treating tumors with liposomal bicarbonate combined with a sub-therapeutic dose of doxorubicin achieved an improved therapeutic outcome, compared to mice treated with doxorubicin or bicarbonate alone.

msot of the time. And even that is just two sentences from the abstract of a many page long paper.

And I say this as a scientist.

As a scientist you should know what "expected" means.

The GP has simplified the original claim to the point where it's flat out incorrect. That's the problem with a lot of pop science, especially when it gets repeated a few times. Double especially when some of the simplificaiton is done with ulterior motives.

IIRC the 400 year estimate is for known reserves[1] providing the world's current[2] energy demand[3] given the US's current aversion to breeder reactors.

[1] depends on your definition of "known reserve"
[2] when?
[3] actual total energy? Just electrical consumption? Omitting solar to grow crops?

People can't remember 400 years ago. People can't remember 20 years ago, or five either. They just sort of remember a vague story about their own personal past, tinged with well known cognitive biases.

It works both ways. Susskind's claim that progress in the foundations of physics hasn't slowed since the 70s is pretty incredible. Progress is nowhere near as fast right now as it was in the 1970s, or 1920s. That's okay. They're not called "breakthroughs" because progress is steady and predictable.

It's not even a horse and a gate. It's trying to get the horse to stand on one of those little platforms they use in circuses and the horse eventually gets tired of it.

There are still free web pages that live up to Berners-Lee's ideal. I've got a couple as I expect lot of people with the skill to make one do. CERN has one. Lots of big public institutions do. But web pages ain't free, even if you make and host them yourself. Those free web pages are either volunteer efforts, paid for by public funds, or made as a public service or unobjectionable advertising by private money.

Altruism only goes so far though. When it gets to be too much work it needs to make money, and the options there are subscriptions or advertising, both of which are widely available today.

I don't think it's corrupt. It's lazy. Patent examiners are overworked and are probably aware that what they do doesn't really matter. They're prone to rubber stamp things because it's ultimately up to a court anyway.

I'm not sure why you say that. The claims are very broad, as they are in most patents. Patent claims arent "all of these things" they're "any of these things" with some limited (lol) hierarchical relationships as specified.

Usually the way it goes is that the actual person who made the thing gets to explain it to a lawyer and the lawyer draws up claims that vaguely resemble their impression of the thing in the broadest possible terms. Broad terms let you intimidate and maybe actually sue the largest variety of competitors and make your intellectual property and patent portfolio more impressive.