This is the worst of science writing. I have zero interest in the man's childhood or what he or his desk looks like; just tell me about the science.
Articles like this are pandering to the lowest intelligence that purports to be able to read.
Articles like this are pandering to the lowest intelligence that purports to be able to read.
But when it comes to fusion energy, there are many possible approaches, yet few are actually being pursued with serious commitment of resources. The future of our species may depend us trying more things harder. And for this reason I find it quite interesting to read the "human interest story" behind the non-mainstream attempts being made, what their motivations are and how they are managing to get the necessary resources and to keep up the commitment throughout the long road to uncertain success.
It's not, it's a life interest story, obviously so from the title. History of science isn't a review article but it is still history and some scientists like me find history to provide a lot of insight into how we got where we are.
It explores both the person and the science and leads to a wonderful insight and admiration for the people and the sciences they work within.
I highly recommend it and all the episodes from the very first are relevant today so don't feel like you have to listen to only the new ones.
And while we're at it, why do we care about the background of entrepreneurs around here? I mean just walk me through the business model and give me your KPIs already.
/s
I find this trend has been true of most journalism. Every story has an elaborate narrative built around it to provide "context", most of which has little bearing on the facts.
Someone should create some article writing software that lets you distinguish narrative parts of an article from the factual parts, so readers can selectively show/hide each one.