Second sentence from The Fine Article: "While the duration and temperature alone aren’t records, the simultaneous achievement of heat and stability brings us a step closer to a viable fusion reactor – as long as the technique used can be scaled up."
If ITER succeeds (proves that fusion in a magnetic confinement device can be used to produce net electricity and it's "just" a matter of scaling things up that is holding fusion back), then sure, investors are going to line up, even for alternative designs. Fusion will be all the rage. But until then, I doubt anyone is scaling anything fusion-related up. Well and if ITER fails, then we are all fucked, and we can turn the fusion "are we there yet" clock back 50 years.
Seeing as ITER doesn't even exist yet, I fail to understand how it can be old news or how we can innovate beyond it.
In short, we have diminishing returns for giant reactors, and instead need to have plants that can be mass produced, fast.
BTW I had to vouch for your comment to reply because you have a history of making short and sometimes brusque comments and HN has punished you for it. If you would make slightly longer comments in the future more people will engage with you and it will be more fun for you.