When a baseball batter hits a ball at a record 120mph, you calculate the impulse of force (∆p) they put into the swing to cause that result, not the total calories the player consumed during the past year in order to build their muscles.

You're arguing that the process of charging some inefficient lasers (aka eating food throughout the year) is invalidating this entire result. That was never part of the experiment, nor is it relevant to this test.

I understand exactly what you wrote above, and I'm telling you that it's not relevant to this discovery. You're arguing a non-sequitur in the classic definition.

Just as a note, since I made the same mistake initially, the person you're replying to didn't make the post from which you are quoting "impossibly complex".

It seems, to me, that boc was criticizing the unnecessarily dour tone of sillysaurusx's previous comment and not the technical aspect of the achievement.

The whole thing seems to come down to whether one interprets the announcement as an attempt to deceive the public at large or simply a celebration of a milestone that many in the fusion research community have been trying to achieve for a long time. I can understand it being interpreted both ways, but I think the more charitable interpretation is that science reporting, in general, doesn't usually properly explain the levels of nuance of various achievements and, as such, something that is genuinely exciting for those in the community is not necessarily as exciting for those outside of it - which comes across as deceptive.

You are entirely correct. I'll just add that it's not only about the energy put in, but ultimately about the cost. Net positive energy output is the absolute basic requirement. We're not there, we're not close, and even if we were, the hurdle would be to make it economically viable.