One misses the point if one assumes that this is about which technology is most appropriate for de-carbonizing the world in the near future -- it is clear that the LCoE of wind and solar are phenomenal, and will continue to ramp up with the exponential curve of adoption. Solar and wind, AND storage, will get there first by a long shot. For that, I am grateful. Yay for learning curves.

But I don't accept your premise of an exclusive or. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. The economics of fusion will not be what we need as a game changer for this generation, but learning curves and technological progress are like contributing to your 401k when you're in your 20s, and they will apply to fusion just like they did for solar. And by next generation, it would be lovely to have a gamut of technologies to choose from for different use-cases (powering spaceflight, for example).

The world is enriched by scientific and engineering progress, and just because I like Messi doesn't mean I think Ronaldo is shit. I think there is a tendency in these fusion discussions to put up a strawman and to assume that any excitement about fusion detracts from the practical tools that we can apply today. I can only assume that this tendency comes from the green-washing energy companies have engaged in (e.g. "green hydrogen" from natural gas). I understand this cynicism, because it has been earned. However cynicism can prevent us from being happy for real accomplishments -- and yes, the Q>1 is as arbitrary as celebrating the year 2000, but it IS an accomplishment.