For example, see the entire climate model and experiment with these models without feeling they are abstract things. We can feel like they are things that are tangible, that are just before us, discuss around it, and so on.

Yes. I have given a talk on other previous attempts at VR. The link is pasted in Skype for you. The entire idea is it prepares people to see the entire social object, like us. Things that are much larger scale than we previously experience, but as one tangible object ...

Most people with very bad hotel connections, we can still get a interview going. That’s one of the very practical uses.

Virtual reality thing for me is part of daily life and I use it mostly as a time-saver so that I can have interviews with journalists who don’t have a bandwidth connection, because using virtual reality it doesn’t put that much demand on bandwidth.

Take care.

Yeah.

Or just post on the ask.pdis.tw site. It’s this public forum that I sent you a link to where other journalists also...

In my mind it just says that facts, feelings, and idea need to be considered at the same time. There’s no jumping to idea without facts and feelings and so‑on. Saying linear things like this doesn’t really convey my idea. The idea is in a much more visual form, is ...

The emojis are independent of culture. Everybody sees the same shapes and understands more or less the meanings. Everybody would pronounce it differently. Interpretations like this, for example, means facts, feelings, and ideas but it combines them in a way that everybody can give a different interpretation.

The important thing is I don’t think in these terms, which is why I have to un‑ask a bunch of your questions, not out of debating. It’s just not that way.

These logograms are supposed to present the world as I see it, or as my perspective of it, not what happens so as to further some agenda, or some action to be taken, as to further some ideology. A lot of questions asked are based on this very linear cause‑and‑effect ...

I make a lot of my presentations using just emojis and not writing. That’s my default mode of making slides. This is actually usually how I do my slides. Making slides this way, you have to see the movie to understand what I’m saying. [laughs] The idea is that it’s ...

What’s the word you used? Teleological? That’s a very interesting view. Have you see the movie "Arrival?"

If, just based on state, you refuse to share knowledge. We have never seen a license, an open source, an open culture license like that. We’ve never seen a part Wikipedia that says, "Unless you’re from this country, you can’t access it," or, "Everybody can access it but people from ...

The whole thing is that my work is for the enjoyment of anyone who happens to run across it and understand it. I don’t see a paradox between my work and closer tie to anyone, any person. It’s a very individual‑to‑individual world view. In this kind of sharing, state is ...

I’m made a virtual reality space and connected a classroom in Hangzhou with a classroom in Kaohsiung, and sent digital doubles to the students, who put out those VIVE devices to have seen my lecturing. There are ways around that, and I see those as inconveniences.

I have to file any amount of papers to get anywhere outside Taiwan, which I also find intriguing. [laughs] But I have ways around that. I send my digital double. I send my avatars. I send robots.

The thing is that even after being the Digital Minister, I still taught classes in Hangzhou, China. Anyone who wants to learn from me, I wouldn’t turn them down. Of course my travel is somewhat limited.

Yeah, but that’s not my department.

The same with international de jure independence.

It’s a good thing, but there is no point in saying a position on this kind of thing. One is either financially independent when it feels ready and their surrounding environmental things feel ready. You have it to earn it somehow or win the lottery. [laughs]

Building this kind of relationship, internationally, which is a very good thing. These people from MoFA are working at it. [laughs] That’s their job.

It’s the same with Taiwanese independence. Independence is a relationship with the international community. While I understand a lot of people in Taiwan are building that kind of relationship, it is a very good thing in my book.

You have to be recognized as having good credit or having something that people recognize as wealth, and have a maybe steady, passive income out of a market that guarantees this kind of income, which is a long‑term relationship with you. I’m talking about financial independence.

The thing is that independence, just like financial independence, it’s not something that one can just magically say and it happens. It’s a relationship between you and Bitcoin...sorry, the financial community [laughs] that makes you independent.

No, you have to spell it out, sorry.

It’s a good thing.

Financial independence?

I’m pretty involved in political life.

For what?

I have to pay monthly fees.

I don’t see the point.

No, I’ve never been part of any party.

We don’t have a very long culture of software existing independent of hardware here. I could say a lot more, but these are fundamental things.

On top of this, we have a long history of building the components of electronics, anywhere from the mother board to the displays. Software tends to go into these tools or into these things, instead of existing by itself as an abstract thing. What Microsoft did was pretty unimaginable back ...

It’s pretty homogeneous in the social media, which is, by the way, also why Facebook has the highest penetration in Taiwan. You don’t get pockets people of using different instant message tools and social media tools.

Just look at the current composition of the Taiwan working force. We don’t have that many foreign talents working here. You can still just speak English, and then everybody understands you, or just speak Mandarin, and everybody understands you.

By saying, "We want to make Taiwan Silicon Valley," it’s absurd. It means both the impossibility of porting a foreign culture here, and also meaning destroying or absorbing the culture that’s already working pretty well here.

Totally impossible. Silicon Valley is a tradition. It’s a culture. You don’t transplant cultures overnight. Moreover, Taiwan has its own SMEs, its own startup, its electronics, and a digitally‑enabled culture.

I have no idea.

Practically speaking, this still enables the other marriage equality couples to have the same rights. There’s really nothing lost, except, of course, nomenclature. It’s important to find exactly the right wording, so that neither of those two sides feel that they’ve been slighted. That just might be it.

A lot of the conservative people will be happy, as long as it’s not the same word describing the two kinds of relationships, but there is a special line that nevertheless enjoy much of the same rights. A lot of them are OK with that, as long as they don’t ...

People used to argue that it needs a separate act, and now people are arguing that it needs a separate section in the same act. Now, at this current moment, the parliamentarians are agreeing that all we need is an additional clause in a paragraph in the act.

If we do something upon this foundation, and in a wording that doesn’t offend each other’s sensibilities we can get this to work. A lot of other countries have gotten this to work. What we need is to find a unique formulation in our current legal system.

What she said is the same message as has already been saying for quite some time. She also said that during her election. Actually, a lot of Supreme Court judges said, in the US, that the notion of family value being important. It’s the common ground on which the conservative ...

If he said a very charged statement without declaring the subtext, there’s no way for Tsai to know that he has this subtext going on. Just by quoting him, of course, the activists feel that he’s being told...

The activists took this quote as a reaffirmation of his worst nightmare, saying that "President Tsai said marriage equality probably will not pass in your lifetime." He mis‑remembered the quote. But it’s entirely subjective.

The activist was quoted as saying "but my life cannot wait." President Tsai said, "Even if that’s the case, let’s think about the future of other people." That’s the conversation. It’s very clear from the context that the first part of Tsai’s speech was just quoting hypothetically. "But we need ...

Out of our work because the Ministry of Justice has already finished commissioning their study, and there’s no agenda on our plate, at least before the Supreme Court and the legislative have completed their proceedings.

No, we first need to make sure it’s constitutional. Otherwise [laughs] we’ll have to change the Constitution. There’s this process in the Supreme Court, and there’s a process in the legislation. It’s largely out of the administration branch and that kind of work.