solbear

I'm curious, what language would you consider being easy to learn

A language with no grammatical irregularities for starters. And one where the phonetics are consistent. Constructed languages can offer this. Whether any existing ones are sufficiently easy, I'm not sure.

And then some mechanisms that facilitates vocabulary building. For instance, I like the affixes in Esperanto, as understanding the root word and then the affixes allows you to pick up all kinds of words you never explicitly learned. And example is -ejo, which indicates a place, could be combined with a root word such as the verb forĝas (to forge, root: forĝ-), yielding forĝejo = place where one forges. Or monero (money, root: moner-) + -ejo yields monerejo = place where one stores money (= monero).

I'm sure with modern linguistic knowledge a much easier language than Esperanto could be constructed.

However, it's not that you can dictate a language

The question was whether an auxillary language would be a good idea. It would necessarily be dictated. Every citizen would learn it in school. The proposed benefit having a a common language easily learned and spoken equally well by all member state citizens, that could be used to cross language barriers (like English is today), and that could be used within EU (i.e. all institutions) as an official language.

For the record, I am intrigued by the idea, but I am very open to this being a bad idea, which is why I made the thread to hear people's opinions.

Are there live translators between all pairs of languages?

Interesting point that I did not consider, and not sure I fully understand. How would it lead to discrimination do you think?

How does this work? Is everything live translated?

Hehe, that one is often suitable, and I think it fits nicely here.

I don't count English as a particularly easy language to master. Do you not think there are some problems that arise from assymetry in ability to learn English? Not just thinking about legal documents, but debates, discussions, negotiations etc.

And is this massive amount of translation not just very inefficient? Although I suspect at best a new language would come in addition, so we're back to the xkcd-strip and nothing was solved there.

What is the main reason this is a poor idea to you?

Does translators not just lead to inefficient communication?

When long texts such as these are posted, it would be very helpful to have some kind of summary to go with it, or better yet: OPs thoughts on why it should be read. :)

“1kW within 1hr” isn’t power. That’s energy.

The watt is always power, not energy. I'm assuming OP here got some prepositions mixed up and meant 1 kW delivered for 1 hr. That amounts to an energy of 1 kWh.

The second is like hell hole, tons of energy but still only a little bit of power.” No. They are both precisely the same energy.

No, they are the same power. The energy in the case where 1 kW of power is delivered for 1 hour is 1 kWh. The energy in the case of 1 kW delivered for 1 s is about 0.28 Wh.

If instead 1 kWh was transferred over the course of 1 hour, that is an average power of 1 kW (but does not have to be uniform, without more information we can't know the power profile). If 1 kWh is transferred over the course of 1 s, that is an average power of 3.6 MW which is the example I think OP was getting at (ref. hell hole comment).

I wonder if this could be a good use-case for an LLM: feed it that fire-hose of an RSS-feed and have it group and spit out a short and sweet summary per group with the original links. It's something I would want from actual journalists, but while they are busy writing about Trump's latest tweet, this might be a usable substitute?

Hm, what letter comes before A?

I think the problem is that the media reports everything Musk and Trump says, so having an effective way to filter through everything to get at what keeps me informed is not straightforward. This wouldn't be an issue if news outlets acted more as a filter and reported only on the more essential developments with proper analysis to go with it. In my country, the main page of our main news outlet will report Justin Bieber having a baby as breaking news on the front page, alongside notices of American "celebrities"' demise (I put it in quotes, because they need to refer to the character they played in a 90s sitcom because nobody knows their names), and five articles about the same unfolding event.