Ok, little explanation.

In fusion research Q defines the power factor, how much energy the fusion reaction produces Vs how much you put in. At Q=1 you have break even but to be useful for power generation you have to get to more like Q=10. ITER is supposed to reach that.

Because lasers are just that inefficient people working with them like to redefine Q to not the input of the lasers but to the input of the fuel pallet. There is so least a factor 4 more likely at least 10 between that.

It actually isn’t technobabble. As the other poster said, Q is a factor that represents the ratio of power produced to power consumed. Q=1 represents perfect break even, not needing extra external power but also producing no net power.

The trick with a lot of fusion literature is that how Q is defined is kinda relative. It tends to get defined in terms of the ratio of power released from the fuel to power needed to ignite the fuel. This is undoubtedly a critical milestone to achieve, but it also ignores all the extra power to run all the extraneous systems e.g. cooling and electromagnetics. When that is all properly factored in, Q as typically defined has to be closer to 20 or so in order to generate net power.

Imo fusion research is worth investing in, it will be the ideal energy source until we can get to the point of constructing a Dyson swarm around our sun. But I’ve had to concede that there’s way more progress that’s still needed, we probably will not have commercial fusion plants within our lifetimes.