planck01

Because of better and easier to prove legal definitions. It's not about the lack of competition, but just the number of users you have.

A good way is to put in on bio powered power plants. So you grow trees etc in dedicated areas, which remove co2 from the air. You harvest it for centrally burning for energy and co2 capture. In the meantime you grow new trees etc at the harvest locations. Do this at scale. It makes money, energy and results in a net co2 loss.

Obviously you can also make systems to do direct air capture, but that is much more expensive, you'll need wind turbines because of low co2 density in air, and it won't make money. So just using trees on large areas is probably hard to beat.

Contrast that to Zelensky's: "The fight is here; I need ammunition, not a ride." Putin's weakness is showing all around.

It might be that that is what relativity theory implies. Then again, it might not. We don't know and that is what Hossenfelder is pointing out. We just have some formulas that seem to fit our observations mostly on large scales. We know they don't fit on quantum scales.

Some issues that string theory has:

- We have not found any evidence for it.

- Some predictions have been made from it that weren't found (e.g. no supersymmetric particles in the LHC).

- It can be tuned to fit almost fit any universe and any observation, which doesn't really make it scientific.

- The reasons for inventing it might have been misguided or flawed. (universe must be beautiful / simple / etc).

The lack of results are turning a growing part of the scientific community off, while there is still a core amount of scientists holding on to it.

There are such reachable truths, but every mathematical system has a non empty set of axioms - or assumptions- which are 'given'.

No, they're not wrong. Some of these concepts are hardly explainable without math.

If you want fame, status or power -> certainly don't be humble.

If you want truth, understanding or science discoveries -> be very humble (intellectually).

I would love that. But honestly, I would be surprised if fusion energy will be economically feasible before 2100. If ever.

I always try to see the human brain from an evolutionary perspective.

What the human brain added was a way to simulate other brains, because of growing communication ability for coordination's sake. It's basically a way to recognise smart freeloaders. E.g. men trying to sweet talk a woman for sex (and impregnation). He will make a lot of promises but how surely can you depend on him? It's of vital importance you know so you don't get duped.

So the human brain is an advanced bullshitmeter and bullshitter in an arms race, and this brain simulation machine has all kinds of unexpected side effects. At least, based upon some clues I read from some biologists, I came out on that understanding. If this has some truth, based on the world today, we still can get a lot better at it.

> however that overlooks how difficult it is to collect such data.

It is very difficult in physics as well. Do you know how hard it is and how much effort is involved in building the LHC? Or Ligo? Or the JWST? Or ITER? They cost billions of dollars, thousands of scientists and decades to plan and make before you even get science data. Science is hard! You need to put the work and effort in, because otherwise you can't say anything about the nature of things.

> That doesn't make the study of human behavior "not science" in my opinion.

It might be valuable and it might be worthwhile to do. But what you describe in itself is not science.

I wouldn't presume anything. But email, phone number, cookies, other machine finger printing stuff, wifi and other location giveaways are also possible.