After Todd Rider's thesis, why are companies still working on aneutronic and non-equilibrium fusion? Todd Rider's thesis (Fundamental limitations on plasma fusion systems not in thermodynamic equilibrium) clearly states in the abstract that:

...In virtually all cases, [the] minimum recirculating power is substantially larger than fusion power, so barring the discovery of methods for recirculating power at exceedingly high efficiencies, reactors employing plasmas not in thermodynamic equilibrium will not be able to produce net power. Consequently, the advanced aneutronic fuels cannot generate net power in any foreseeable reactor operating either in or out of equilibrium...

I cannot seem to find anything that proves this wrong, only a whole lot of support for it. His arguments are widely cited as reasons why IEC devices like fusors or reactors like migma fail. However, just a simple web search will find companies that claim to have the technology for net power producing aneutronic fusion. For example, there's TAE technologies, which claims to have the technology to produce power from proton-boron-11 fusion for relatively long (millisecond timescale). That's just one example – there are plenty of others.
This seems to be in direct contradiction to Rider's thesis. So has he been proved wrong? Or are they relying on the fact that his conclusions have never been experimentally verified and assuming he's wrong? Or is there some loophole in his argument that I can't see?
I.e., does this mean that power generating aneutronic fusion and/or non-equilibrium fusion is possible with current technology?
 A: Well I'm an inveterate fusion skeptic, so take this with a grain of salt, but here goes:
"why are companies still working on aneutronic and non-equilbrium fusion?"
Because people give them money in spite of any impossibility in their physics. So why not? And the people investing in these see it as pure hail-mary with their funny money. So again, why not?
No, I don't think these are (all) scams, but I do think they are very much in the realm of pathological science. They really believe they are going to save the world and no amount of reality will convince them otherwise. If removing the prism didn't convince Blondlot that N-rays didn't exist, what do you think it takes to convince someone who's saving the entire planet?
I won't relate the story here, but I have talked to someone who produced a report about one particular scheme and why it could not possibly work (unrelated to Rider's issue). Twenty-five years later, people continue to give the company millions upon millions of dollars. As far as he is aware, not one person has ever followed up on this report while doing due diligence.
If they don't care about that, why would they possibly care about some theoretical problem that's got a lot of math like Rider's paper when the guys that are gushing about their concept are saying it doesn't apply [because reasons]?
