We're considerably ahead of where 60s and 70s era fusion projections put us, given the rate of funding. It's just that we've funded fusion research at considerably less than the worst case scenario back then.
Truly energy-producing fusion is not available even in bombs.
Sure it is. The fusion components of boosted and multi-stage bombs produce lots of energy. In two or three stage devices that use inert tampers fusion produces the vast amount of energy.
The earliest known incidence of a three-stage device being tested, with the third stage, called the tertiary, being ignited by the secondary, was May 27, 1956 in the Bassoon device. This device was tested in the Zuni shot of Operation Redwing. This shot used non fissionable tampers; an inert substitute material such as tungsten or lead was used. Its yield was 3.5 megatons, 85% fusion and only 15% fission.
The public records for devices that produced the highest proportion of their yield via fusion-only reactions are the Peaceful nuclear explosions of the 1970s, with the 3 detonations that excavated part of Pechora–Kama Canal, being cited as 98% fusion each in the Taiga test's 15 kiloton explosive yield devices, that is, a total fission fraction of 0.3 kilotons in a 15 kt device. The 50 megaton Tsar Bomba at 97% fusion, the 9.3 megaton Hardtack Poplar test at 95.2%, and the 4.5 megaton Redwing Navajo test at 95% fusion.
He says it will disrupt development. He gives Intellisense as an example. Code completion has always disrupted by development.
Those stupid code completion add ons always disrupt my development. Which is why my IDE is a text editor.
It's interesting to hear just how much money Apple has loaned the people of the United States at very low interest rates.
Line Printer paper is strongest at the perforations.