I know people here are very skeptical of AI in general, and....

People here are gonna have to come up with something to say about AI apart from just screeching "I hate it"

When man attains the knowledge of this common essence, he uses it as a guide and proceeds to study various concrete things which have not yet been studied, or studied thoroughly, and to discover the particular essence of each; only thus is he able to supplement, enrich and develop his knowledge of their common essence and prevent such knowledge from withering or petrifying. These are the two processes of cognition: one, from the particular to the general, and the other, from the general to the particular. Thus cognition always moves in cycles and (so long as scientific method is strictly adhered to) each cycle advances human knowledge a step higher and so makes it more and more profound. Where our dogmatists err on this question is that, on the one hand, they do not understand that we have to study the particularity of contradiction and know the particular essence of individual things before we can adequately know the universality of contradiction and the common essence of things, and that, on the other hand, they do not understand that after knowing the common essence of things, we must go further and study the concrete things that have not yet been thoroughly studied or have only just emerged. Our dogmatists are lazy-bones. They refuse to undertake any painstaking study of concrete things, they regard general truths as emerging out of the void, they turn them into purely abstract unfathomable formulas, and thereby completely deny and reverse the normal sequence by which man comes to know truth. Nor do they understand the interconnection of the two processes in cognition— from the particular to the general and then from the general to the particular. They understand nothing of the Marxist theory of knowledge.

Depends on the context. If it is written/talked about in a geographic context, it will usually mean “the Americas”. If it’s in a political context, it will mean “the USA”.

That's a good point.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerika

Esperanto has 100× the traction of any of those, though.

Stalin, Ho Chi Minh, and James Connolly learned it.

It definitely has flaws, that other International Auxiliary Languages do better on.

Lingua Franca Nova, Ido, Novial , Lingwa de Planeta, Lingua sistemfrater – all technically better than Esperanto

Esperanto – way better than any of those for adoption, actual community, a million or 2 million speakers

To give an idea of adoption:

• https://eo.wikipedia.org/ – 359 344 artikoloj en Esperanto

• https://io.wikipedia.org/ – Hodie (jovdio, 3 di oktobro 2024), ni havas 50 461 artikli tote en Ido

• https://ia.wikipedia.org – Al momento nos ha 29 719 articulos.

• https://ie.wikipedia.org/ – 12,858 articules in Interlingue/Occidental

• https://lfn.wikipedia.org/ – Aora nos ave 4,446 articles.

• https://nov.wikipedia.org/ – Disum es li Wikipedie in Novial! Nus nun have 1,665 artikles.

And when you compare it to a language like English..... like it's 6× easier to learn than English. And yeah maybe Ido is 10% better than that.... but say English is 600 difficulty points, Esperanto is 100, Ido is 90..... you're pretty much fiddling in the margins at that point.

Esperanto is extremely Eurocentric

It gets too much shit for this, IMO

The two choice were:

• be similar to the world's largest language-family, so that speakers of that family pick it up quicker

• be distant from all languages, so that nobody picks it up extra quickly

The alternative to making speakers-of-european-languages winners was making everybody everywhere losers