

Just a credible threat.
In Memex crowd thinking environment for thoughts unthinkable to separate beings, human-machine general intelligence raises superintelligent offspring to help all life.
Just a credible threat.
Before a tankie comes in propagandising the 1992 consensus that says “there is one China, our China”, by which China means PRC (People’s Republic of China) and Taiwan’s ruling party KMT meant RoC (Republic of China), let me add some detail:
After effectively losing the Chinese civil war in 1949 by retreating to Taiwan, RoC martial law era ruling party KMT first threatened to retake China until 1991, and then diluted the plan into “reunification” and cosied up with China. Last time KMT said “one China” was in the 1992 consensus, at the end of martial law. Taiwanese people never agreed with KMT’s hubris or sucking-up, which shows in voting results since the martial law ended.
Now Taiwan is stuck with the official stance of “one China” because China’s (PRC) Anti-secession law of 2005 promises war if Taiwan changes its name from the old “Republic of China” (since 1911 in China, since 1945 on Taiwan) to “Republic of Taiwan”. They missed a chance to become officially Taiwan the country. Most parties in Taiwan support “status quo”, “don’t rock the boat”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Taiwan#Current_political_issues
Another victim of lawfare. If you design a crappy three-wheeler, you voluntarily step into the lawfare trap set by fossil fuel industry to sabotage you. The correct solution is for the velomobile industry to attack the unjust laws and make four-wheelers be treated the same as three-wheelers.
https://xfwnofqagsnmdxuf.quora.com/Lawfare-against-tiny-cars-velomobiles
Trikes are only good for saving pennies at the cost of driveability and usability - they should not be incentivised by law. They are slow and teetery around curves, unless very low centre of gravity over the two-wheeled axle. Four-wheelers are more stable and can have a cargo space or a back seat between the rear wheels.
Not only on how wide, but how much weight is on the two-wheel axle.
We’re making the same mistake with AI as we did with cars; not planning human future.
Cars were designed to atrophy muscles, and polluted urban planning and the air.
AI is being designed to atrophy brains, and pollutes the air, the internet, public discourse, and more to come.
We should change course towards AI that makes people smarter, not dumber: AI-aided collaborative thinking.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-better-to-work-on-intelligence-augmentation-rather-than-artificial-intelligence/answer/Harri-K-Hiltunen
https://www.quora.com/Who-invented-the-modern-computer-look-and-feel/answer/Harri-K-Hiltunen
Not Fediverse, but an example of what works:
Quora used to have a fantastic crowd-edited question topic ontology/taxonomy for precise feed shaping with thousands of disambiguated topics interlinked in a graph/tree structure, but they enshittified the system away 2023, and now it’s all LLM misunderstandings of what the question topics should be. The bot thinks a question is about apples when the question is a mathematics word puzzle; “How many apples…”. The excuse for AI tagging was “tags can be abused” when in reality the crowd corrected the abuses quickly and reported the offenders. With the new AI tagger, my feed turned into viral trash from Quora-celebrities, mostly about current news.
They never made the obviously needed features of:
Commanding a bad/incompetent/overworked parent to become a good parent doesn’t make it so.
Worked for a notorious backstabber, got stabbed in the back. Is this the right time for victim blaming?