Pretty much every example is considered an abysmal failure that often costed the actual workers their careers while their CEO carried on.

If you consider that outcome a worthwhile endeavor, I don't know what else to say.

He's definitely not talking about worthy endeavour.

He's talking about an endeavour reaching the market.

I'm sure if Zuckerberg wants to spend $10B on Nuclear Fusion it will happen.

It’s fission, not fusion:

https://www.esgdive.com/news/meta-inks-nuclear-deals-terrapo...

…and if they do all of this, it’ll be closer to $20B than 10!

If all it took to get viable fusion power was a FAANG CEO with $10B to burn, I'd be first to petition for it to happen, and even throw whatever money I can spare onto that pyre.

I've never seen a real effort to make fusion happen and I believe the issue here is that starting small may well be big (like a small elephant). If it costs say $30 billion to build a fission reactor, I don't think anyone will get it done for less than $3B a year in R&Do over ten years.

I'm talking fusion because it's something out there. And in the context of something like the metaverse.

Fission is something you can buy today at retail.

Even my poor country has a Nuclear reactor.

Viable, of course, meaning safe? lol

No, of course not. We can worry about making it safe after we have any form of it working first.

(Also yes, I'm serious.)

Have you done any deep reading on Fukushima?

(Doesn’t seem like something to move fast and break things on - change my view?)

Is this a “we can technology our way out of anything” stance?

This is its worth knowing how to do.

I'm talking fusion because it's something out there. And in the context of something like the metaverse.

Fission is something you can buy today at retail.

Even my poor country has a Nuclear reactor.