It means that I drew something like this on paper, and then pressed keys on paper. If I press, say, C, L, S, and then I would write CLS here. Then also write a cursor here.

I only study the things that intersect with my mission here.

No, it doesn’t intersect with my mission.

I don’t quite know what exactly is the policy that’s being enacted. I see a lot of white papers and a lot of calls to enact this and that, but as of what’s actually transpired, I admit that I haven’t studied at length that way what’s being discussed.

I really relearned a lot of the early microblogging techniques, reading how Trump is tweeting.

That’s how Twitter is used when it was first invented. All those long form packed into short form afterwards is we writers trying to cram something into the form that was not invented for things like this.

Trump’s great in using everyday language, and express one very simple sentiment. Not connect it, not even caring about making the complete picture, but just making that one sentiment very succinctly using Twitter.

It’s one or two forms. You either write part one of three, two, and then three. Use three tweets to make a micro‑micro blog [laughs] of your thoughts. Or you try to pack, using jargons, and your technical, or whatever things that you knew your friends will understand, and try ...

The thing with Twitter is that it very easily, because of the limitation of the characters, to use every shorthand, to use emoji, even, because that’s the ideograms that saves the most character.

I learn a lot of how Twitter can be used, thanks to Trump.

He’s very good at using Twitter.

It’s great. It means that the channel itself work independent of any particular president. We do talk about that kind of politics.

Far as I know, China is still keeping this. Even though the first few petitions are about him releasing tax returns, or something, after the first wave, the other follow‑ups, and the final resolutions of the petition, and so on, largely resume the normal process.

We talk about, for example, the We the People petition and how Obama has archived everything that’s in the middle of the petition because, theoretically, you’re not the same administration anymore.

No, we never talk about the One China Policy, or something like that. We do talk about politics.

No, we never talk about this.

In an abstract sense I know there’s a call because I happen to read them on Twitter or there is a One China Policy, or something, because I read it on Twitter. I care inasmuch as I will read the description of it and I remember.

Not any more than if you name a random South Asian or African country. I care in the abstract sense, but not in the personal investment sense.

Only when it’s useful. The One China Policy doesn’t have anything useful one way or another without the government work that I’m doing.

States.

As an anarchist, I officially don’t care.

I haven’t talked to anybody about this.

That’s what I have observed.

My international friends and acquaintances who will mistake us for Thailand sharply declined after it went viral on the Twitter‑sphere.

No, as a person I only watched the Twitter‑sphere. I’m telling you the Twitter‑sphere takes it in a very explosive ‑‑ what we call "go viral" ‑‑ fashion. What I mean is that the call itself ‑‑whatever they have talked during the call, I don’t know of that part ‑‑ ...

I wasn’t part of the team who arranged it.

Tsai set up a English Twitter account shortly after that, because perhaps she saw that Trump was very effective in using Twitter to announce the Taiwan‑US telephone call. Twitter’s great.

I think Twitter’s fine. Twitter is a very innovative way to do diplomacy. I do that myself.

I read it on Twitter.

Once we have these two technologies, then they’re text. Once we have them in text form, then the data mining, the text mining community can step in and produce much better algorithms than three passes with a visual reading, which will greatly speed up the process.

Right, in terms of redacting. Very concretely speaking, only this year that machine still has humans in turning speech into text. Maybe in a year or two, optical character recognition will also catch up, even on historical everything, documents.

That’s the main complaint of the historians who have talked to you, is that it’s a very lengthy process, but that’s something machine learning can help, at least on the first pass.

It’s a matter of cost. To usefully redact people’s names from these records, and only the people who are innocent or unrelated to the case, requires advanced natural language processing. That’s currently done by human beings in a few passes. Because of the sheer number of documents, the process is ...

Yeah, a little bit easier.

The current law isn’t exactly very friendly to that, but there is a transitional acceleration law, or something like that, that will make their job easier. It’s in the works. I’m not part of that thing, but it should be in the Parliament sometime this session.

I’m very interested in that, and also think that it’s one of the many ways to build empathy for people to debate meaningfully on a public construction, for example, by being its inhabitants. Being, maybe, children in this new space, being cast in this new space, and seeing the new ...

I do think, due to the limitation of the previous technology, we tend to capture some narratives and some photos, like tiny slices of these kind of things. I do think the modern technology with VR, with 360 reconstruction we can capture the immersive experience, not just as a outsider’s ...

All sorts of, not just National Palace Museum things, but also oral history, performance, memories of tribal, or whatever, that the heritage is.

There’s a huge archive project that’s gone on for some years now, primarily Academia Sinica. What we call [non‑English speech] , the digital archive of ‑‑ what’s the name? ‑‑ the No‑Material Heritage, or something like that.

There are aspects where these tools are useful.

That’s, obviously, also a defense issue, and that’s something that the Ministry of Defense may gain, actually, in furthering this dialogue with citizens, and so on, on the basic principles. Not building weapons, not their daily business, but why they’re doing their and how they’re doing their daily business.

There are petitions toward the Ministry of Defense. For example, there was a huge petition about the gender inequality of conscription.

My own pedagogical approach is like this. Through radical transparency, we share how we’re learning things, how we’re building things, and then maybe some of the people will tag along. That’s the entirety of my teaching.

I don’t think so. My view on education, because I wasn’t schooled, I wouldn’t say that I have teachers or professors who taught me. For me, they’re fellow learners and they share their learning process. Not necessarily why they’ve learned, but how they learned.

I don’t think there’s sudden enlightenment going on.

Our experience, not belief. Our experience is that what is this achieving if suddenly there is a face change and the people adopt those tools in a self‑organizing way? If people are not ready, it means that either the tools are not easy enough, or there’s no obvious incentives for ...

No, not at all. I keep doing whatever I do to lower the cost of the tools of the process, because that’s what we modern anarchists do, David Graeber, Noam Chomsky, and so on. Everybody focus on the effective tools, especially low‑cost, effective tools, that allow people to self‑organize.

No, I don’t. I don’t.

As the President, she...

For people who don’t yet see the idea of an open government, there are still a lot of pockets, especially around, for example, Minister of Defense, or diplomacy, as you’ve said, and so on, who don’t yet see a lot of those values in this, which is fine, because they ...