They do have clear goals of what to add, their goals make somewhat sense for some use-cases. But pretty much all of them direct conflict with at least one and sometimes multiple SQLlite core principles...

What the author wants as far as I can tell is a embedded distributed (edge) database with some C-API and SQL compatibility to SQLite so that you can use it with existing tooling (like e.g. by linking against it instead of sqlite) but not necessary as a drop in replacement (different transaction semantics), which doesn't need the same degree of portability as sqlite.

Through that is not quite what the author ends up communicating in the article. I wonder what degree of the formulations are intentionally manipulative compared to accidentally badly formulated.