1)???
ITER regulations just say they will follow applicable national laws of the Host Nation.
Sorry about that, I forget that this isn't actually common public knowledge sometimes. Anyway, nuclear regulatory commissions don't know how to classify, certify, or regulate nuclear fusion, because it's not nuclear fission, which is what they are geared for. Yet, the need to regulate is recognized. So, how is this resolved? By negotiation. Take, for example, tritium which is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen weighing 3 atomic mass units. The limitations went from 100 grams of tritium in the device, to 300, to 700 with a further 300 grams error margin baked in. That was over the course of about a decade (it was "finalized" in ~ 2009). The changes were made as ITER was developed and we understood better how much we would actually get. There is actually a number of such things, with regulations being very fluid and subject to adjustment.
So, what ITER is basically saying is that it will follow the laws it wrote and negotiated for itself.
3)Youre forgetting industrial fire regulations for processes looking to generate and contain plasmas at 9-digit degrees worth of heat. Plus whatever is involved when you are looking to generate multiple teslas worth of field strength.
No, fire regulations don't work like that. You are looking at high voltage regulations, but the fire hazard regulations would be for flammable gases. Plasma itself, at least non-atmospheric plasma (i.e. stuff that's not atmospheric arc discharges) is not considered as a conventional fire hazard. It's important to understand, a typical working pressure of a tokamak is ~ 10^-7 of atmospheric pressure. And the heat that you are quoting is at the core plasma, not the whole volume.
Magnetic safety is a thing, but that's basically OSHA.
2)And no, I disagree.
You underestimate the role of everything from timing to politics in technology adoption. VHS vs Betamax. AC vs DC. The history of cellular technologies in the US. OS/2 vs Windows. The ideological opposition to EVs and solar/wind power in the US. The ideological opposition to vaccines in the US in the middle of a pandemic.
Frontend vs. backend is the analogy I would suggest. You don't go for flashy world-changing stuff first. You establish yourself as the backbone of the industry first, but one that's outside of public view. Advanced alloys, energy capacitors, etc.
1)You are making significant assumptions about the cross-applicability of stuff in our Hell with realworld Dresdenverse technology. Or that our Hell having RnD resources to spare. A coherent magic+technology techbase means that solutions that use technology IRL might have no equivalent in our Realm because a magic solution was simpler or cheaper.
For example, why would our Hell even have encryption/decryption stuff? It's a one world government without technological hostiles or large-scale crime. That stuff was driven primarily by military needs against peer opposition IRL.
There's a good chance that our Hell will be importing some solutions from the real world.
Not vice versa.
This is also an assumption on your part. While yes, our world, being our world-soul and not a part of Creation is likely to have different underlying physics, it also can have humans in it, which, I assume, wouldn't keel over dead after leaving. So, physics are the same on at least some level of abstraction. This means that at least some technologies, meaning ways to influence the world, would be the same, because form follows function.
For your encryption-decryption example, I would expect even a happy crime-free society with the government that enjoys a genuine 100% approval rating and that has somehow overcame the individual desire for privacy to have more advanced archival and data transfer algorithms than we have. And that ties directly to encryption-decryption. Almost certainly far better machine learning, machine vision, text recognition, text-to-speech and speech-to-text systems than were available in 2006. Unless literally everyone's OS is a cyberdevil, but that means a way to mass-produce cyberdevils loyal to their owners on a truly industrial scale.
2)I repeat:
A research establishment pulling out mature versions of technologies from multiple disparate sectors is wildly implausible. The combined research budgets of the G20 haven't managed it, but some johnny come lately concern run by a teenager will? And not just one, but multiple?
Yes. You start with material science, because we already have background there with Chicago Synthetics, and expand from there, offloading stuff to patsies. If need be, you use the Crown to find good patsies.
3)Technologies build on each other.
This is 2006; touchscreen smartphones havent even been invented yet iirc. We're still fuzzing around with 65nm lithography in computer chips, and software encryption is a significant burden on computation resources. A lot of the things you're talking about simply aren't viable because the real world lacks the capacity to use them commercially.
Not really. While 3D printers might be stalled, material science things won't. Nor would batteries and stuff like that.
5) This is a fantasy quest.
Of the three settings in play, both the Dresdenverse and World of Darkness are urban fantasy settings, while Exalted is high/epic fantasy.
Schemes about technological uplift are not actually what the quest is supposed to be about.
This is your preference. Mine is different. Autochton was very much a part of Exalted setting, and my favorite at that. Technocracy was a part of WoD. Your preference is perfectly valid, so is mine. But appealing to "this setting works on different themes" is wrong, because two of the three settings we are talking about have the themes in question.
From my understanding, and correct me if I am wrong, what you want as a result of Molly's actions is essentially the same world, but safer. Doylistically, a story of adventure and fighting with maybe some politicking, where the setting is the background and essentially actually stays pretty much unchanged, or at least not relevant, where our impact is significant cosmologically, but wouldn't actually be noticed by an average person on the street. What I am interested at least in part, is to see a positive change happening. Not just the same, but safer, but different and better.
I mean, to pick just one, do you realize what better batteries alone does for improving the viability of SSK conventional submarines against SSNs? Or the viability of cheap compact drone munitions in the hands of military and irregular civilian forces? And thats just off the top of my head.
Yes, and, frankly, probably better than you, no insult intended.
))" is answered by "great sounds even more dangerous and exotic to the point we don't have standardized ways to mitigate any damage, why the fuck should I not bin this immediately."