Corrections

How we make corrections

Technology keeps moving, so some of what we publish will fall behind or turn out to be off. When we find a clear factual error, or a reader points one out, we check the source and, once confirmed, fix the text directly rather than leaving the old wording to hedge. For a substantive correction that changes the takeaway, we add a dated line at the foot of the article so you can see the piece was changed and when. Plain typos, formatting and dead links we fix quietly, without a separate note.

The fastest way to flag something is to email [email protected] with the article link and the source you are looking at, and we will get to it.

Published corrections

Below are a few corrections worth logging from the launch period, most recent first.

• June 24, 2026 · "Reusable rockets: how spaceflight got cheaper"
  The first draft gave a fixed number for how many times a particular booster had been reused, which read like a hard ceiling. In practice that figure is a moving target that updates with each flight. Changed to "the publicly verified reuse range so far, with the operator's latest announcement taking precedence."

• June 18, 2026 · "The fusion timeline: how long is the wait"
  An early version stated a "net energy gain" result too absolutely, which could suggest fusion power is nearly here. We added that the result applies to a single-shot energy accounting and that grid electricity is still an engineering distance away, and made that distinction explicit.

• June 11, 2026 · "What blockchains are actually good for"
  One passage gave a precise number of seconds for a chain's transaction "confirmation time," glossing over congestion and finality. Changed to "a rough range under normal conditions," with a note that it slows noticeably when the network is busy, to avoid a misleading sense of certainty.

Something still off?

If you see anything we should have corrected and have not, write to [email protected]. Sending the source along helps us verify it faster.