What's wrong with calling it ln x? The way this is written in the article implies there's something weird about calling it that. The name 'log' can mean log2, log10 or natural logarithm depending on the field.
Removing ambiguities from math notation should be considered a good thing.
The author expressed a worry about math education. Consider that a clear non ambiguous notation would help.
In school (and engineering or physics I guess) you often are made to use ln for natural log and you are taught a way to pronounce that name (somewhere between lun and l’n)
It feels like the point is “this person had not been exposed to university style mathematics”.
Similar to those who mock people for saying a word incorrectly that they only learned from reading.
Imho math is about logic and reasoning, not about what group you're part of
Mathematicians decide what is interesting, and that's not a matter of logic. A computer can bang out new theorems at light speed but nobody cares. Mathematics, like science and programming, is as much about humans as about the raw logic and data.
You're welcome to be a group of one and please only yourself. But then you wouldn't care if it were published, and it wouldn't be unless you showed it to someone and they took an interest.
Whereas in uni log is generally assumed to be the natural log, or else it's specified, or else the base is unimportant (like in big O notation)
As someone who has done a lot of mathematics in their life, I've never found this perceived ambiguity to be an issue.