Trees never evolved for the purposes of mass capturing carbon from the air as efficiently as possible. Yes, they convert CO2 to O2 as part of their life cycle, but algae and other organisms have a much bigger role in capturing CO2 and turning it into O2.
Furthermore, so much of the CO2 that we emit is CO2 that was sequestered in the past over those very same 100s of millions of years. Meaning that going the natural route will take that amount of time.
Let's not pretend that the west needed Putin to become racist/fascist. The same west which slaughtered tens of millions of people at the altars of capital after WW2.
Some academics became liberals after having flirted with Marxism. This is relevant why exactly? I mean, I can cite many great minds who remained Marxists and even advanced the theory. Ever heard of Paul Cockshott? Alan Contrell? David Zachariah? Emanuel Farjoun?
These guys (and some others) actually worked on Marxist economic theory and modernized it. They lived through the collapse of the USSR and remained steadfast in their beliefs. And I haven't talked about countless other minds in anthropology, history, contemporary social studies and philosophy who have used dialectical materialism as a foundation to achieve great results.
And so I want to emphasize something.
every single one of them gave up and became an egalitarian.
Is blatantly and literally false.
I can perform a completely independent experiments in my house.
And I can scream into the abyss, it's just as relevant. The absolute majority of actually useful and relevant science is performed socially for social purposes.
I make a hypothesis that my stove can boil 1L of water in 10 minutes.
You aren't even supposed to do a scientific experiment in the way you have just described. Or rather, there is neither a universally agreed upon scientific method, nor would your described experiment hold up to any standards.
An actual scientific experiment into water boiling would involve at the minimum
However, at each of these steps, you have a choice of how to approach the problem. And this depends on what you are trying to do, and what the best standards in the industry are. The process has also changed over time.
And this reveals the problem of many people's metaphysical approach to science. They treat it as if it were a platonic ideal, or floating constant in the human minds pace. In reality, "science" is an industry with its ever-changing standards, culture, interaction with the rest of society, and a million other complexities.
The broader field of academia and getting scientific papers published is more of a governance thing than science.
You cannot separate the 2. There is no pure science out there which can be done without "governance".
What the fuck are you talking about?
3 day invasion
The idea that they planned for it to be 3 days was completely made up.
Let’s see if it pays off for them.
Quite the attitude to have when the west is losing wars on like 4 fronts (gaza, yemen, ukraine, and lebanon) simultaneously. That too while having shit military industrial capacity.
By capturing Russian territory Russia now has a reason to come to negotiations to just call everything off to get their land back.
Ukraine captured land in kursk and this did not cause the Russians to come to the negotiating table, nor signal that they will weaken their demands. In fact, they simply started taking land even faster in Ukraine because Ukraine had committed resources into kursk instead of the front lines.
All it goes to show is that westerners have a complete non-understanding of this war.
Well, at least Russia will further supply enemies of the west in retaliation.
I mean, if you get into any real depth with math, you are going to reach a point where you can't use conveniently use words to describe the symbols being manipulated.
As an example for the math I am doing literally right now, I very much prefer using C^+^~R~ compared to "semi circular arc in the upper half of the complex plane with radius R", or M^+^(f(z)) which means "Maximum of the magnitude of the function f(z) over C^+^~R~", which if I were to write out in full, would just become a clusterfuck.
Also you still wouldn't be able to get rid of symbols because some symbols are placeholders and straight up don't have any meaning in natural language. This occurs often in physics as well, not just pure maths. For example, the laplace transform of any function is written as a variable of "s", but "s" doesn't have a clear meaning (at least as far as I know).
I personally lost all interest in math because there are way too many opinionated or non-standard symbol definitions
That seems like a strange reason to quit math since most symbols are pretty well agreed upon, and maths has little to do with the actual notation either way.
A time complexity of N to the power of logN?
I can see why someone might have a problem with that.