粗看之下，维族人与沙特土耳其切割的紧迫性并不逊于中国人与CCP切割的紧迫性。

然而在油比人贵、人权弱于油权的这个世界，推广自由民主的费效比实在是令人尴尬。

推荐使用迷雾通。并不希望渲染出一种国内用户访问本站很危险，以至于要发声明退网的氛围。

祝一帆风顺。

@通音宽依 #134163 非常感谢你一直以来的搬运。翻车新闻的点击量，一直是我关注的重点。

@猫宅冻 #134171 司机所见略同。不过这可能跟作者投入逐渐降低、投稿来源的变化也有关，很多生活新闻（特别是娱乐、游戏相关的）的翻车，对那些不关心娱乐和游戏的观众不友好。

先得罪一下翻车新闻。

翻车新闻是对体制的讽刺和批判。讽刺批判需要素材，翻车新闻就专门提供素材，所以看完翻车新闻会令人身心愉悦。

但是

1. 第一次看翻车很好玩，每天看翻车就无聊了，翻来覆去就那几种姿势
2. 翻车逐渐日常化，万物皆可翻车，生活即翻车，何苦再去看重播
3. 看翻车并不能减缓倒车，也不能避免自己翻车
4. 有时间看翻车不如研究造船
5. 我家真的有一辆车

以上可能是翻车新闻在本站浏览量极低的原因。

对各位未来国父而言，翻车新闻属于开小差，每多看一分钟翻车新闻，就少积累59秒政治资本。

所以不要开小差。什么主张是受欢迎的？什么口号是易传播的？2047是研究这些问题的试验田。

比袁隆平还闲的人，没有资格抱怨。

@libgen #134074

很重要的问题：oplog有延迟。

故意设计如此，刷新即可。

既然出现了职业网评员，封禁事项是要重视起来了。对于他们的封禁理由需要统一。

封五毛理由可以直接写五毛

@钦明方泽忘了密码 #134089

不论是MasterChief还是无贼，我都找不到容不得他们的理由。

我有很多理由。理由不在于有没有，而在于其他人是否承认。

Q1: The register page of 2047 said that "用户名需符合 ^[0-9a-zA-Z\u4e00-\u9fbb-_.]{2,16}$". It perplexed me a lot since insofar as I know no one adopt such a complicated username. I wonder if what you exactly want to express is that a password shall be as convoluted as that.

it's a regular expression.

Q2: The time of post in 2049bbs times is displayed in the form of "yyyy-mm-dd"(e.g. 2020-04-01), but I don't know why later it was changed into "mm-dd"(e.g. 12-01). Although currently we can easily tell whether a post was created in 2020 or 2021, things might be different at some point in the late of 2021.

older timestamps will show yyyy.

@钦明方泽忘了密码 #134086

无贼的问题就在于2047这个小社群里有一小半人坚决不容他，那么作为站长，驱逐无贼就是权衡利弊之后的唯一选择。出了这样的事，不论是增订制度也好，还是批评站长也罢，甚至就算反对驱逐的人用实际行动来抵制该决定，都不能解决根本问题：小社群里有一小半人坚决不容他。

我可以把MasterChief也封禁，这样这个事情就彻底结束了。

@MasterChief #134065 你少说两句吧。

概括：闽南背景的走私集团船只在台湾海峡加油之后开到了朝鲜，途中关闭或伪造无线电信号，但被美国的卫星从天上拍到了。

想起一个家里是讲闽南话的熟人，就是做海上加油生意的，由于不用交税，非常赚钱，干几年就能退休了。

@burleigh #134028 你在个人页面可以上传头像

私心就是私下的想法，是不应该公诸于众的。好比一个公司赚钱的方法，当然不希望别人知道，都知道就没钱赚了。

因此把私心发出来是有风险的，认可你的人会抄袭，反对你的人会翻脸，还不如闷声发大财。共产党就是闷声发大财的榜样，老百姓永远搞不懂中南海里发生了什么。如果共产党有一天透明了，马上会被更不透明的同类取而代之。

每个人来2047的目的不一样。

我办网站是出于我自己的一些想法，读《新手指南》可以大概了解本站的意识形态。

建立新秩序需要人才，入站考试就是智商歧视。

你支持维新还是起义并不重要，你是不是梁启超很重要。你身为反贼还是粉红也不重要，你是不是王沪宁很重要。

国共内战是军校生和留学生的舞台剧；人民群众的力量需要比人民群众更高的智慧来调动。

有人说2047活跃人数才30多，其实不发言只点赞的人比这多得多，不注册只看帖的更多。

如果仅仅是需要人气，方法太多了，例如把入站考试拿掉。

但要保持网站的吸引力，必须提供令目标用户感兴趣的内容。如果在不作筛选的情况下提高人流量，以目前的内容组织形式，会将目标用户感兴趣的内容稀释掉，于是人气会先升后降，类似于某国的先污染后治理。

互相拉黑能避免当事人间的矛盾，但无法避免低质量言论被大部分人看到，拉黑不能替代封禁。

那能不能换一个内容组织形式？推特模式不需要建立共识，每个人可以自由选择自己想看什么，不想看某人只要不关注就行了。

但是推特模式的缺点：无法进行长篇、多人、高强度的讨论，只能形成宣讲会共识，无法形成座谈会共识。推特模式是绝对的资本主义，新用户默认不会得到任何关注。也正因为是资本主义，任何twitter的clone都很难跟twitter竞争。

论坛模式的缺点：为了座谈会的正常进行，许多在推特上能正常存在的言论和表达方式，在论坛会遭到删封。

论坛纠纷本质上是共识纠纷，共识纠纷跟阶级矛盾一样不可调和。

本站很多规则都是基于共识而不是真理的，比如不准针对性别、种族进行歧视是2047用户的共识，但同样有很多其他论坛是允许歧视的（比如品葱），所以到底哪一个是正确的？we don't care! 反正我们的共识就是这样的，谁歧视就封谁的号。

还有比如不准滥用辩论技巧，也是我们定的，谁胡搅蛮缠我们就封谁的号。

但是管理员之间对同一个问题有不同看法怎么办？那就大搞政治运动，或者我本人出来一刀切。大家信任我就来，不信任我就走，这就是丑陋的现实，我除了接受也没有更好办法。

@MasterChief #134040 管理员民主并不能避免下面这种情况：

2/3管理员投票认为川普是垃圾，1/3管理员投票认为川普是上帝，最终结论：川普是垃圾，然后1/3管理员出走。

从网站的角度，让1/3管理员出走的制度肯定不是好制度。我首先需要对网站的发展负责，其次才是对个别用户负责。

请不要对号入座。

答复

Although 2047 does have its Terms of Service (TOS) and Detailed Administrative Regulation (DAR), nearly all of them behaved as if those rules never exist at all, as they failed to invoke a specific article of either TOS or DAR, but barely immersed themselves in relentless value debates and cost benefit calculations, which reflected the fact they more or less lack the awareness of the terms.

• Our admins have never been trained as professional moderators
• A large portion of them have never been in any position of power
• Since this forum is mainly about politics, it's quite normal for people to have their own version of "freedom", "rights", "rule of law", etc.
• But I still need moderators, and I must allow them to talk freely, to give our audience a sense of free speech, even at the cost of displaying extreme carelessness / stupidity on certain issues regarding moderation.
• Cost benefit calculations/discussions is a good way to teach the moderators how government actually works in real world. No one sticks to the law unconditionally; politics/economics would be useless otherwise.

For controversial violations, the case shall be reviewed by a panel consisting of odd-numbered admins. The preliminarily blocked user is allowed to defend himself/herself, and other users can express their views for reference. Finally, the panel vote to decide the case. In other words, the authority of so called "vote ban" shall be exclusively granted to the admins so that uncertainty and latent manipulations can largely be eliminated.

No form of voting should be written into our rules. Vote-bans are, and should be, exceptions not norm.

Other than reasons explained above,

• one-person-one-vote is intrinsically flawed. Democracies chose it because it maximizes apparent fairness, so people would complain less.
• Fairness(among users or admins) is never what we're after as a private company. To survive in competition we have to maximize efficiency.
• We allow users to defend themselves so they can't complain about our process of being unfair.
• Yes votebans counts only admin votes. It's more a show of hands (as a political tool); the final decision is never based solely on the result of the vote.
• I have in the past and will in the future overrule from time to time to close the gap between what people vote for and what they actually want.

In my opinion, "institutionalization"/"rule by law" means no one except the site owner is above the law, namely terms. It requires all users to have an awareness of compliance with the terms and admins to exercise their authorities in accordance with the terms.

要从根本上解决这个问题，需要普及道德教育，甚至搞“社会信用分”。我们目前的处理方式是把缺陷品直接丢掉。

Institutionalization/rule by law brings more certainty and stability as it can restrain the admins' willfulness. By contrast, it seemed so weird that a user somehow was blocked by one admin and soon unblocked by another. And clearly stated and interpreted terms also bring predictability, so that users can better learn how to behave themselves.

已经有管理员因此事被处理。我个人给管理员的忠告是，在现实生活中行不通的做法，不要在2047使用。特权可以调动坦克，但碾不碎巴拿马文件。

Secondly, nearly all of your admins are good content generators, yet that never ensure them to be good admins. In my view, some admins are unqualified and incompetent to deal with blocking. At least they should be acquainted with 2047's TOS and DAR.

很多管理员作出过不参与站务的承诺。

对于什么人该封，意见上起决定作用的admin并非所有admin。由于这相当于降低了部分管理员岗位的含金量，我不会透露具体名单。

很多人认为政治就是制定一个规则，然后所有人按照规则走就行了，其实不是的。写在纸上的条文，effectiveness总是比不上政治家们在桌底达成的共识。将黑盒抽丝剥茧，会降低黑盒的effectiveness（例如近年的radicalization，以及最近论坛遇到的擦边球大师）；黑盒太多又会令人天然反感。我们就是要在中间取一个balance。

This is a private message from one of our readers.

Dear thphd, I have been a read-only tourist of 2047 for a long time. I basically agree with your stand and trust your capabilities, but I still worried about the efficiency and robustness of your "rule of man" philosophy of forum management, so I am going to provide you with my "two cents" provoked by the recent debates on banning 天下无贼.

Since publicly criticizing the admins violates Article 13-2 of Detailed Administrative Regulation of 2047 Forum(t/8055), I chose to PM you instead.

On the Incident of 天下无贼

The debate on the identity of Wumao is entirely pointless, irrelevant and distracting, as it has nothing to do with the issue at all, since the terms don't stipulate that any user who makes pro-CCP claims on 2047 shall be banned.

As far as I am concerned, the existence of 天下无贼 is distasteful yet that alone is not enough to drive me away from 2047. However, what worries me most is that how poorly most of the admins and users performed in the debate. Although 2047 does have its Terms of Service (TOS) and Detailed Administrative Regulation (DAR), nearly all of them behaved as if those rules never exist at all, as they failed to invoke a specific article of either TOS or DAR, but barely immersed themselves in relentless value debates and cost benefit calculations, which reflected the fact they more or less lack the awareness of the terms.

On the Practice of Blocking Users

In my opinion, the relationship among the users and site owner is a contractual or contract-like relationship. Specifically, it's a two-way "donation", that is, the site owner grants the users to freely use the site's services as long as they comply with the terms (TOS, DAR and other policies and regulations), meanwhile the users voluntarily generate contents and contribute to the site traffic and popularity (though it brings no profit).

The DAR serves as part of the contracts, as put it in t/8055#102550 that the DAR is the product of agreement instead of legislation. Therefore, blocking accounts of users who breached the term, namely their contractual duties, can viewed as a unilateral cancellation of the contract and a necessary remedy taken by the site owner.

So whether a user should be banned is solely a contractual dispute. All of the debates concerned with such dispute shall be rule/term-oriented, as the only thing we need to address is what the term is (which article of the which term applies and how is it interpreted), instead of arguing what the term should be, needless to say to disregard the established rules/terms and replace them with the debaters' own values and whim.

The practice of blocking a user is in essence more like the practice of judiciary rather than legislation, so it's not sensible to introduce polls (in your words, "voteban") to decide whether a user should be blocked. As we have already established rules, why bother resorting to direct democracy and adopting the ancient-Greek-time ostracism?

Furthermore, as it is a formal question and whose answer can only be correct or incorrect, there is no room for challenging the legitimacy of the final decision since all the user agreed to obey the terms at the first place, just like the court need no referendums to confirm the legitimacy of its adjudication.

As for the value and utility debates, they should be reserved for the rectification procedure. All users can put forward suggestions to rectify the TOS and DAR (see t/7851#101203).

Suggestions for Rules on Blocking (Article 12 of DAR)

I suggest to distinguish controversial violations (e.g. Article 9-1 of DAR, also see t/11778#133836) and uncontroversial violations (e.g. Article 9-6, 9-7 of DAR), and then take different approaches to deal with them in order to balance efficiency and fairness.

Any admin has the discretion to block a user, but reasons of blocking must be provided, including at least one post link as evidence and the specific article of terms applied.

For uncontroversial violations, the decision of blocking take effect instantly.

For controversial violations, the case shall be reviewed by a panel consisting of odd-numbered admins. The preliminarily blocked user is allowed to defend himself/herself, and other users can express their views for reference. Finally, the panel vote to decide the case. In other words, the authority of so called "vote ban" shall be exclusively granted to the admins so that uncertainty and latent manipulations can largely be eliminated.

The blocked user and any dissenting admin has the right to appeal. If either 1/3 of the admins or the site owner agree to take the appeal, then the case shall be reviewed and to be voted by all members of the admins. The case is decided only if the 1/2 threshold is met. Since admins are not always online, it may take a long time. (By the way, I noticed that some experienced admins were absent from both of the votebans on 天下无贼. Had they participated in, the result could have been different.)

The site owner reserves the authority to overturn any case.

And I also recommend you to develop a collection of 2047 case law (e.g. t/11325#128378) as a complement to the terms, so that admins can more efficiently dispose of the similar cases while users can more easily learn the boundaries of speech on 2047.

On the Institutionalization

As you mentioned in t/11778#133841 that what 2047 has is "rule of man" and all kinds of jurisprudence is rule of man in essence, it's not fitting for me to persuade you to adopt "rule of law". Therefore, I use "institutionalization" or"rule by law" instead.

In my opinion, "institutionalization"/"rule by law" means no one except the site owner is above the law, namely terms. It requires all users to have an awareness of compliance with the terms and admins to exercise their authorities in accordance with the terms.

Institutionalization/rule by law brings more certainty and stability as it can restrain the admins' willfulness. By contrast, it seemed so weird that a user somehow was blocked by one admin and soon unblocked by another. And clearly stated and interpreted terms also bring predictability, so that users can better learn how to behave themselves.

On the Admins of 2047

I have to point out that 2047 may have too many admins. And the more admins you have, the more difficult it might be for them to reach consensus.

Secondly, nearly all of your admins are good content generators, yet that never ensure them to be good admins. In my view, some admins are unqualified and incompetent to deal with blocking. At least they should be acquainted with 2047's TOS and DAR.

Additional Questions

Q1: The register page of 2047 said that "用户名需符合 ^[0-9a-zA-Z\u4e00-\u9fbb-_.]{2,16}$". It perplexed me a lot since insofar as I know no one adopt such a complicated username. I wonder if what you exactly want to express is that a password shall be as convoluted as that.

Q2: The time of post in 2049bbs times is displayed in the form of "yyyy-mm-dd"(e.g. 2020-04-01), but I don't know why later it was changed into "mm-dd"(e.g. 12-01). Although currently we can easily tell whether a post was created in 2020 or 2021, things might be different at some point in the late of 2021.

--

Any inconvenience to you by this wordy letter is regretted and there is no need for you to reply.

Best,
Redacted

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/OpenSearch

@消极 #133834 人类从历史中学到的唯一的教训……

@在之中 #133839

两句话有什么区别? 你这水平可能还不如无贼。

不好意思你这次挑晚了，我review的时候发现这个点会被你抬杠，提前作了补充。

你挑刺还是比较精准的，但不要幸灾乐祸。你水平最高，你来当管理员好不好？

@消极 #133837 本站是人治，这句话很有可能是废话。如果存在人类因素就叫人治，所有法律系统本质上都是人治。

我们定了歧视违规，但什么是歧视，是人类管理员来判定的。

比如说，歧视究竟是什么，对网站究竟有多大危害？在大家搞清楚到底什么是歧视、歧视对网站有多大危害之前，很难给虫文门定罪。拖延实际上是给时间大家研究讨论，进步提高。

虽然不得不承认，当初封贝臭大神速确实是因为贝臭大初来乍到，而无贼是老浆糊；但本质原因还是宣传剪开肚子找法轮需要时间

@狐狸士兵 #133794 实在是不好意思，本站部分管理员进入了抓鬼模式，有点虫篱不分。

请进入抓鬼模式的管理员注意一下，只要对方没有破坏秩序，先给对方解释的机会，不要一下子给人家封了。他虽然涉嫌歧视女性，但他没有强迫别人接受；他主动开帖讲，没有跑到别人楼下讲；他没有恶毒咒骂、胡搅蛮缠，便由得他多说两句嘛。

如果他只是犯了逻辑错误、事实错误，且愿意纠正，说不定还会成为朋友，我看下手可以再等等！本站等天下无贼可是等了好几个月呢。

虫文门的小号没有违规的话，不要封禁，本站并没有小号必须封的规则。合理使用小号是被允许的，只有搞破坏才会被封。

歧视指的是把个体、小部分人的属性，错误地推广到整体、大部分人身上。比如说新疆人都是小偷，就是歧视。

歧视女性，指的是把小部分女性的属性，错误地推广到整体、大部分女性身上。

以下是我对管理员 @natasha 所挑选违规言论的点评。

女人最基本的好处可以解决性需求和传宗接代，

按照天下无贼的逻辑，女人难道不能解决性需求吗？难道不能传宗接代吗？这两个属性难道不是大部分女性具有的吗？所以不构成对女性的歧视。

但是他说最基本的，意思就是说女人其他的好处不够基本（不够重要），这就构成对女性中部分群体（例如女性科学家群体）的歧视。

女人真是越来越优越了，我认为男性权利必须要大于女性，不能男女平等，当今女人的地位必须要低于男人。

这一条是根据前提作出的推论，前提是“女人越来越优越”，可以理解为“女性地位越来越高”。按照天下无贼的逻辑，女性地位正在变高难道不是事实吗？他认为男性权利应该大于女性，说明他认为女性应该拥有权利，只是对具体拥有多少权利持不同意见。我们应该看他给出的理由是什么。所以这句话不构成歧视。

但一旦男女平等，往往女性就对物质过于极端追求

消费品市场确实是女性主导的，问马云和问贝索斯会得到同样的答案。女性不仅对物质有追求，而且相比男人对物质的追求并不低。说“极端”显然是缺乏证据的，但这本身并不构成违规，毕竟根据天下无贼的逻辑，“提供证据可能导致作者身份泄露”嘛。

只有禁止医院做流产，先让女人多起来，再对男人找工作放宽松点对女人打压点

他指的其实是禁止根据胎儿性别进行选择性流产，这将促进出生性别比例的均衡，不构成歧视。

他要求**对男人找工作放宽松、对女人打压，这个是歧视。**根据competence以外的任何feature限制他人工作机会都属于歧视。

男人赚钱养家就行，女人少做点工作在家带孩子就行

这是表达他个人观点，不构成歧视。按照天下无贼标准，只有他说“女人不可以赚钱养家”才算歧视。

如果国家有好政策把女性权利降下去点就好了

由于实际目的是“对女人找工作打压”，构成歧视。

所以绝不能实行男女平等思想

由于实际目的是“对女人找工作打压”，构成歧视。

这位校友的机智，体现在清华报案时提供的理由上。国父material。

@在之中 #133810 就是你说的这样，除了部分细节错误。之前拉黑他很久了，他无法回复我的。动他是因为他跟别人起了矛盾，别人投诉到我这里了。然后我就去看到底发生了什么，一到现场满脸喷粪。

结果voteban呢，大家出奇一致想挽留无贼。

后来类似的事情又发生了几次。

心理健康？要做这种推测，你首先要搞明白我开网站的终极目的是什么。

@在之中 #133722 直接蒸发最快，那你们又不高兴。

@青年 #133670 碎尸万段是我的观点，表达观点有错吗？观点跟你不一样就不能表达吗？碎尸万段难道不是存在的一种刑罚吗？我说碎尸万段不是真的要刑事犯罪，只是表达我的一种情感，表达情感违法吗？你连表达情感都要管？你是不是管的太宽了一点？

有意见？来啊，找个理由封禁我啊，一言不合就封禁跟品葱有什么区别，这种管理员我见得还少吗，我玩网那么多年我怕你封号？

懂了吗？

我自始至终都没有说无贼是五毛。无贼绝对不是五毛，在本站是定论。

但是无贼的一些发言，跟五毛发言有诸多共同点，例如几乎无信息量，为辩论而辩论，这是有非常实的实锤的，按照规则是应该封禁的。

比如无贼为了辩MasterChief，把DCEP和人民币这两种有明显且巨大区别的东西，说成没有区别；事后我发帖批判这一点，指出DCEP和人民币的区别，无贼终于承认确实有区别。

围观群众议论纷纷，看来这2047网站的水平也不过如此！都是些车轱辘学说，正讲反讲都是通的，有可以说成没有，是可以说成不是。观点和标准根据需要随时滑坡，越讲道理越吃亏。

虽然我知道无贼没有收钱，心也不坏，也确实是真心实意来交流的，但这并不妨碍我认为这种人应该碎尸万段，油炸之后与葱放在一起品尝。

从建站到今天，有哪一个账号被讨论过、封禁过、大字报过、投票过这么多次？而且大多数是用户自发，不是我组织的，之前封禁理由不足我还要解封。你们将不得不承认，无贼对本站的公共资源的占用，远超本站网友平均水平。

那么无贼的发言水平，芝士水平，远超本站网友平均水平了吗？无贼是2047的马前卒吗？恐怕没有。

你们有一个好，全世界跑到哪里……搞个大新闻，说2047是独裁，是迫害异见人士……你们啊，naive！……我今天算是得罪了你们一下。

无贼以前说品葱迫害他，来到2047，但我看他现在在品葱仍然辩得很开心嘛！只要品葱还允许他发言，他在品葱是毫不吝啬口水的。所以就算我们封禁他，也并不会限制他的言论自由。

其实威尔克森这话的前提非常清楚

因为中国新疆有两千万维吾尔人，他们不喜欢汉人。

这个前提显然不是美国导致的。

@消极 #133396 无贼问题是对2047集体政治智慧的一次大考。

杀人不找借口或者找奇葩借口是不要脸行为，品葱站长/普京总统/沙特王子就是这样把自己玩坏的。

这次封无贼，很多人找了很多借口，也包括反对的理由。但是能完美说服大部分管理员的借口，目前还没出现。所以时机还不成熟，需要多开几次政治局会议。426刚过，坦克可以等一等。

@消极 #133152 线上很多工具，浏览器就可以做

@burleigh #133308

就算是陈全国也不能走在路上被路人吐痰被路人打。

仅就这个特例来说，由于制裁，陈全国其实没有在美国的路上自由行走的权利，即使被打了也可能被警察送去ICE :)

Merlin不是退网了，怎么又来管这种棘手的事情了？

法律文本的长度是有上界的，无法囊括所有case，人治的作用是插值，包括内插和外插。

无贼的逻辑毫无问题，表达观点也不违规。但他受到了可自由裁量范围内最重的处理。

我不可能要求无贼证明自己确实有一个亲戚、那个亲戚确实说了什么话。如果大家说什么话都要自证的话，就没法讨论了。所以他那个新疆亲戚的评论，按照规则并不违规。

但是我经过观察发现啊，常见五毛话术跟他这个发言完全一致，他的发言并没有在常见五毛话术之外提供任何附加值，却明显伤害民族感情。

那2047如果允许他发言，是否要允许其他五毛发类似的言？还是说我们应该办一个政治审查制度，把那些使用五毛话术，但实际上并不是五毛的人给白名单？

如果我们搞这样一个白名单，那这个白名单就是为他一个人服务的。

我们讲“谈德赛”，有追求真理的意思。但我们没有精力捍卫“1+1<3”，有需要请自己开网站，或者出门右转隔壁品葱。

烧五星红旗虽然不能解决最本质的问题，但烧旗本身，恐怕没人反对。

巴纳德说，包卓轩被假释了--这是她过去三年来所有客户中唯一一个从阿德兰托获得假释的庇护案。ICE表示，平均拘留时间为55天，但一些移民在拘留中心等待听证会的时间长达数年。

所以包卓轩的情况已经是开恩了。如果他妈不是人权斗士，他会跟其他人在一起被关更久。关押时间如果超过他在中国被关押的时间，或者最后遣返中国坐牢，都会闹成国际笑话的。

确实砸了中国的碗

试了一下，今天很多词都打不出来

• H&M
• 优衣库
• 耐克
• 阿迪达斯
• GAP
• FILA
• New Balance
• ZARA

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56503741

The banknote will enter circulation on 23 June, which would have been the mathematician's birthday.

It will be the last of the Bank's collection to switch from paper to polymer. In keeping with Alan Turing's work, the set is its most secure yet.

Old paper £50 notes will still be accepted in shops for some time.

如果有一个菜市场，对菜价不作最低限制，就会有人说我的白菜一毛钱一斤，但是每人每次只能买二两。于是几百个大爷大妈轮着排队买这个菜，把周围摊位挤得水泄不通，严重影响周围摊位的正常经营。

因为菜市场不是完美市场，商家之间不是相互独立的，交易行为会产生复杂的相互作用。

同理，如果劳动者、雇主都是完全独立个体，可以随时根据且仅根据自己需求决定是否接受某个工资，那么确实没有作最低限制的必要。实际情况复杂得多，例如工人并不能以光速流动到全国任意一个岗位，所以即便雇主调整了工资条件，工人也并不能马上辞职再入职。换言之交易成本并不是零

设定最低工资，可以减少因交易成本超过投资收益而造成的各种矛盾和纠纷，实际上提高社会幸福感。一般来说最低工资应该和 单次交易成本与交易频率的乘积 成正比。这也解释了同样工作内容的情况下，为什么铁饭碗的工资一般会比较低，而流动性强的岗位会比较高。

你可能会说，市场难道不会自动平衡，使那些预期交易成本高的岗位的工资提高吗？well,理想市场需要所有参与者都是理性人，而理性人是不存在的，工人相对雇主尤其劣势，所以需要通过各种方式弥补人类的理性缺陷。比如最低工资，强制社保。

工作时间也是一样的，完全没有限制的话，会经常死人，而死人无法再换一份轻松的工作。按照理性人假设，不会有人愿意干活把自己干死，而现实就是如果没有限制，很多人是能坚持干72小时然后猝死的

接下来我要发表hate speech

迷雾通客户端比作者的身材还臃肿

最理想的情况是把GUI包出去找个人来做，而不是用React写全平台版本。

大家都喜欢用W3C做GUI，不得不面对巨大的Runtime

感叹，我们有比20年前强大一亿倍的AI，处理器依然遵守摩尔定律，却仍然没有在跨平台UI方案上实现质的突破。

希望迷雾通作者尽快把geph4的api完全暴露到命令行或者http（包括注册和登陆），让大家能自由地写GUI。

ex川粉不得不反对Stop Asian Hate，因为China Virus是川普一手操办的

ex川黑不得不支持Stop Asian Hate，因为China Virus是川普一手操办的

这次民运和法轮功袖手旁观，SAH上打出五星红旗，证明共产党才是美华之光，共产国际才是对付种族主义的最后救星

我个人对SAH的感觉，是觉得和其他社运相比实在太弱了，帮hater confirm了Asian的寡不敌众

在美国，Asian American人虽然少但好歹也有20M；LGBTQ在10M-20M左右；但是SAH和Pride Parade相比是天壤之别。模范少数族裔，话语权还不到LGBTQ的零头。

有人说和匪切割不能解决问题，理由是民运切了，解决了什么问题？

这和工人说“罢工不能解决问题”异曲同工：已经有5%人罢工了，解决了什么问题？

所有人都在做工贼，当然显得工会很傻逼。

本网站禁止屠支，然而此刻我真的希望美华集资聘请杀手把陈全国斩首，因为除此之外华人没有什么牌能打了，攘外必先安内，自家后院开着集中营，离开微信就活不了，你让白左怎么支持你

虽然stop asian hate是政治正确，但没有多少白左是真正为了政治正确而政治正确的，大部分人选择政治正确只是因为这样日子过得比较心安理得。西方社会实际投入prevent asian hate的资源和精力，最终还是取决于asian在他们内心的估值。提高这个估值（不管通过什么方式），比指出别人的做法是政治不正确的，要有效得多

背着匪这个负资产不切，谈政治正确还没开口就输了

@消极 #133091 一般理解为，说政府好话的硬，说政府坏话的软

实际上除了说政府好话的，其他全部都软了；

真正说政府坏话的都被依法蒸发了。

坚硬的：中华人民共和国政府必须立即释放所有政治犯！

中性的：我们希望中方提高对人权问题的重视，避免类似的悲剧再次发生。

柔软的：上有老下有小，写篇文章你给人弄那样不合适。

我发现国内的中文表达，不管是新闻报道，文艺作品，还是社交媒体，这几年都严重软化。

就是说话语气不硬了，现在只有环球时报才能硬，其他人说话太硬就算歌功颂德也得封杀。

为了最大限度降低被封的风险，坚硬的变中性，中性的变柔软，柔软的则变成棉花糖。

请受本人一拜。

城邦与城邦之间，永远都是利益、冲突、掠夺与贸易等因素在同一契约框架下存在，这种以利益为导向的文明很自然就强调力量与竞争、冲突与威胁，具有天然的“排他性”，于是“丛林法则”、“达尔文主义”等教条也就成为了他们生存的无上法则，不断上演着冲突、掠夺、征服甚至是屠杀的一幕幕。

说得好像中国自古以来只有一个朝代一样

links内容你可以添加。如果要修改别人的，需要有管理员权限。

你提的这两个，我去看一下。

Why I’ve Stopped Telling People I’m Not Chinese

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/15/opinion/coronavirus-chinese-asian-racism.html

以下是节选，由本人翻译。

So a few days before the trip, I emailed my (white) hairdresser frantically: “I know this sounds crazy but can you can make me blonde? I’m traveling next week and I’m worried about being mistaken for Chinese and blamed for the coronavirus.”

临行前几天，我发邮件给我的理发师说，“虽然很突然，但你能不能帮我染成黄色？我下周要出远门，我怕路人把我当成华人，要我为肺炎负责。”

My panic was a humbling reminder that I should never be overly confident that I would do the right thing in the face of fear. Sure, wanting to avoid racial profiling is a survival instinct. But survival instincts are often amoral and, if unchecked, can easily turn ugly.

这种慌张让我意识到，在恐惧面前我未必总能作出正确的选择。诚然，避免被他人贴种族标签是一种求生本能，但求生本能经常是不道德的，而且如果不作限制，很快就会走向丑恶。

I ended up not dyeing my hair because a sudden allergy attack made it ill advised. Also, it was stupid.

最终我还是决定不染头发，因为临时出现了一些过敏症状，也因为这想法实在是很蠢。

But I shared my anxiety with a half-Chinese-American, half-white friend. What if I get stopped at the airport for extra screening? I asked. She messaged, “Carry around a copy of your books to prove you’re Korean.” (Two of the books I wrote have the word “Korean” in the title.) She added: “I’m serious.”

我向我的中美混血朋友表达了我的焦虑。如果我被机场安检刁难怎么办？她回复：“带上几本你写的书，证明你是韩国人。”（我写过两本标题含有Korean的书）。然后她加了一句：“我是认真的。”

When I was a kid in late-1970s suburban Chicago, anti-Chinese taunts were a daily occurrence. It was a frequent topic at Korean church — the only place we clapped eyes on other Koreans outside our own homes. Our parents and Sunday school teachers told us that the correct response was, “I’m not Chinese; I’m Korean.” (This didn’t even work, it should be noted: When I informed a mean kindergartner that I was Korean, he responded, “There is no such place.”)

70年代的芝加哥市郊，我当时还是个小朋友，遭遇反华言论是一种日常。这成了韩裔教堂（除了自己家之外，唯一能让我们认真注视其他韩国人的地方）的日常话题。我的父母和兴趣班老师都告诉我们正确的回答方式是：“我不是中国人，我是韩国人。”（其实没有效果，此处应该加备注：当我跟幼儿园一个刻薄的同学说我是韩国人的时候，他回复我，“根本没有你说的这个地方”）

None of us kids were proud of being Korean-American back then. The grown-ups tried to counter this shame by instilling ethnic pride. But despite their good intentions, they invited pride’s ugly sibling: implied permission to step on other people.

那时候没有哪个小孩以自己韩裔美国人的身份为傲。大人试图通过强调民族自豪感来对抗这种羞愧，虽然是出于好心，但同时他们也带来了自豪的兄弟：对歧视他人的默许。

For an inarticulate child, maybe “I’m not Chinese” isn’t an especially meaningful retort. But a grown woman should know better.

对于一个不善言辞的小朋友，也许“我不是中国人”的说法无伤大雅，但一个成年女性不能把自己跟小朋友比。

So what finally brought about my moment of self-reckoning? It was a T-shirt.

最终是什么让我开始自我反省的呢？是一件T-shirt。

Last month, a Chinese-American friend of mine posted on social media about a targeted internet ad that had outraged her. In the wake of Covid-19, some clothing vendor saw a business opportunity: a series of T-shirts with slogans like, “I’m Asian but I’m not Chinese,” “I’m not Chinese, I’m Korean,” “I’m not Chinese, I’m Malaysian,” etc. Her friends’ comments under her post were equally indignant. (So much for predictive algorithms, by the way.)

上个月，我的一个华裔美国朋友在社交媒体上贴出了一个令她愤怒的定向投放网络广告。一些服装商家在covid-19中发现了一个商机：一系列印着“我是Asian不是Chinese”、“我不是Chinese，我是Korean”，“我不是Chinese，我是Malaysian”，等等。她帖子下面朋友的评论也同样愤愤不平。

My first thought was, “I wish we’d had these shirts when I was a kid.”

我当时第一个想法是，“我小时候要是有这样的衣服就好了”。

And then I stopped myself, horrified.

然后我被我的这个想法吓到了。

I started bookmarking tweets and news reports of racist incidents. A sample:

我开始从推特和新闻上收录与种族仇视有关的事件。比如说：

An Asian woman pressed an elevator button with her elbow. A man in the elevator asked, “Oh, coronavirus?” She said, “Don’t have it, but trying to be prepared.” As he was leaving the elevator, he said, “Don’t bring that Chink virus here.”

一位亚裔女士在电梯里用胳膊肘按按钮。旁边的男士说，“哦！因为肺炎吗？”她回答：“没有，但是在做准备”。男人离开电梯的时候说，“别把支那病毒带过来。”

An Asian woman walked into a park and a group of mothers screamed for their kids to get away from her.

一位亚裔女士走进一个公园，一帮母亲马上开始吼她们的孩子，让他们离她远点。

A middle-aged Asian woman wearing a mask was going for a walk when a woman screamed at her to get away from her.

一位戴口罩的亚裔中年妇女在散步，另一位女士一边对着她尖叫一边绕路走。

A man spat on an Asian man waiting for the subway.

一位亚裔男士在等地铁时被另一名男士吐痰在身上。

A man spat on an Asian woman walking to her gym.

一名亚裔女士在前往健身房的路上被另一名男性吐痰在身上。

A woman refused a coffee from a barista because she thought the barista was Chinese. When the Asian man behind her started telling her how irrational that request was, she snarled, “Are you Chinese?” He retorted, “No, but your ugly-ass knockoff purse is.”

一名女士拒绝咖啡师端上来的咖啡，理由是她认为咖啡师是中国人。当他身后的另一位亚裔男士指出她的这种想法的荒谬时，她大声吼道：“你是Chinese么？”于是他反驳道：“不是，你那个土到掉渣的冒牌包才是。”

I never would have thought that the word “Chink” would have a resurgence in 2020. The word was supposed to be as outdated as those sinister little Chinamen saltshakers I saw in thrift shops. It still thrived among bottom feeders on the internet, but I hadn’t heard it directed at me since I was in my 20s. But now I was encountering that word every time I read about an anti-Asian incident or hearing about its use from friends. I couldn’t process the fact that Americans were hurling that slur at us so openly and with such raw hate. In the past, I had a habit of minimizing anti-Asian racism because it had been drilled into me early on that racism against Asians didn’t exist. Anytime that I raised concerns about a racial comment, I was told that it wasn’t racial. Anytime I brought up an anti-Asian incident, a white person interjected that it was a distraction from the more important issue (and there was always a more important issue). I’ve been conditioned to think my second-class citizenry was low on the scale of oppression and therefore not worth bringing up even though every single Asian-American I know has stories of being emasculated, fetishized, humiliated, underpaid, fired or demoted because of our racial identities.

我从未想到Chink这个词在2020年会回光返照。虽然网络蛆虫们一直在不断内循环这个词，但在现实生活中，从我20岁开始就已经没有人对我使用这个词了。然而现在我每读到一篇仇亚事件都能遇到这个词，要么就是从朋友嘴里跑出来。我无法接受美国人如此开放、如此充满原始怨恨地把这个词用在我们身上。在过去，我总是习惯性地忽视仇亚种族主义，因为我这么多年深入脑髓的信仰就是：针对亚裔的种族主义并不存在。每当我对一条歧视言论表示关注，别人就会说那并非种族仇恨；每当我提起一起仇亚事件，一个白人就会跳出来说，这是从更重要问题上转移视线的手段（而且永远会有一个更重要的问题）。我已经习惯性地认为，我作为一个二等公民，在被压迫榜单上排的很后所以没什么好提的，即便我认识的每一个亚裔美国人都有一个因为自己的种族而被弱化，被物化，被侮辱，被扣薪，被炒，被降职的故事。

After President Trump called Covid-19 the “Chinese virus” in March, the Asian Pacific Policy and Planning Council said more than 650 incidents of discrimination directed against Asian-Americans were reported to a website it helps maintain in one week alone. Even after seeing that number, I wondered if anti-Asian racism would be taken seriously. On Twitter, when the novelist R.O. Kwon talked about the surge, an in-law asked doubtfully, “Is it really happening?” Do the reports have to rise to 1,000 a week? 2,000? How many is enough so that the hate will be seen?

在川普2020年三月把covid-19称为“中国病毒”之后，亚太政策与计划委员会表示，近一周内他们维护的网站就收到了多达650起针对亚裔美国人的歧视事件。然而即使看到这个数字，我也很好奇仇亚行为是否会被严肃对待。在推特上，当韩裔小说家R. O. Kwon提到排亚潮时，一个亲戚充满怀疑地问道，“真的有那么严重吗？” 数字是不是要提高到每周1000起？还是2000起？到底要多严重才能让大家“看到”仇恨的存在？

全文 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/15/opinion/coronavirus-chinese-asian-racism.html

汉语拼音，说到底还是给自己人看的嘛

Yes, people do hate China.

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/10/06/unfavorable-views-of-china-reach-historic-highs-in-many-countries/

国旗设计对阶级的定义来自《论人民民主专政》。这种定义作为一种高效的政治斗争手段，被应用在建国后的历次政治运动中。

• 你反党？党就是国，反党就是叛国、是国家的敌人，请通知家属交子弹费
• 你不反党，那你有钱吗？有就是资产阶级
  • 你的钱多吗？多就是大资产阶级
    • 你爱国吗？爱国就是民族资产阶级、“开明士绅”
      • 交出资产，我们保证不杀你全家
      • 不交说明不爱国，请通知家属交子弹费
    • 不爱国就是境外资本势力，是国家的敌人，请通知家属交子弹费
  • 你的钱不多？那就是城市小资产阶级
    • 你们对党威胁不大，交保护费就可以了
    • 不交？喂是工商局吗，这里有人非法经营
• 你没钱，那你有地吗？有就是农民阶级
  • 你要把地卖掉？那你就有钱了，是资产阶级，请参照上面的条目自查
  • 你要进城打工？那就是工人阶级
• 你没有地，那就是工人阶级
  • 你打工赚到钱了吗？赚到就是资产阶级，请参照上面的条目自查

根据史料将星号部分还原为中英双语，方便今后研究学习。

• 共产党（统治阶级）：以保护费和赎金为收入的人
• 工人阶级：纯粹以出卖劳动获取收入的人
• 农民阶级：拥有耕地（不动产），通过从事农业生产获取收入的人
• 城市小资产阶级：拥有少量资产，通过从事小本经营获取收入的人
• 民族（爱国）资产阶级：拥有大量资产，通过各种商业活动获取收入，与上述阶级属于同一民族的人

两分钱，不代表本站立场:

• 当年大清被各种联军吊打，华人很自然被视为劣等民族，谁都可以欺负；到二战中美合作抗日，美国就不欺负华人，改收拾日本人了。
• 陈果仁事件背景是80年代美国日本打贸易战，美国民间仇日情绪高涨。
• 所以欢迎或者排斥一类人，往往不是因为这些人本身做了什么，而是背后政治军事较量的一种体现。疫情期间Asian hate crime +150%，和中国政府的战狼甩锅不可能没有关系，即便川府起到添油加醋的作用
• 欺负其他人是人的本性，要防止被人欺负，单靠下跪是没用的，只能靠政治、军事上的实力提升。这就是为什么很多华人不愿意跟PRC切割，因为切了之后显得自己更短
• stop asian hate带来的微小政治优势，会迅速淹没在中美两国互扇耳光的噪音中

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/03/18/history-anti-asian-violence-racism/

The long, ugly history of anti-Asian racism and violence in the U.S.

By Gillian Brockell

March 18, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. GMT+8

A gunman killed eight people at three Atlanta-area spas Tuesday night; six of the victims were women of Asian descent, sparking fears among advocacy groups that the killings may have been racially motivated.

Anti-Asian hate crimes have spiked 150 percent since the pandemic began, according to a recent study.

People of Asian descent have been living in the United States for more than 160 years, and have long been the target of bigotry. Here is a look at the violence and racism that Asian immigrants and Asian Americans have faced since before the Civil War.

People v. Hall / 1854加州屠华无罪法案

Chinese immigrants began coming to the United States in significant numbers in the 1850s, largely to California and other Western states, to work in mining and railroad construction. There was high demand for these dangerous, low-wage jobs, and Chinese immigrants were willing to fill them. Almost immediately, the racist trope of “Asians coming to steal White jobs” was born. And in 1854, the California Supreme Court reinforced racism against Asian immigrants in People v. Hall, ruling that people of Asian descent could not testify against a White person in court, virtually guaranteeing that Whites could escape punishment for anti-Asian violence. In this case, it was murder: George Hall shot and killed Chinese immigrant Ling Sing, and the testimony of witnesses was rejected because they were also Asian.

Chinese massacre of 1871 / 1871洛杉矶屠华事件

On Oct. 24, 1871, following the murder of a White man caught in the crossfire between rival Chinese groups, more than 500 White and Hispanic rioters surrounded and attacked Los Angeles’ small Chinese community, centered in a red-light district known as Negro Alley. At least 17 Chinese men and boys were lynched, including a prominent local doctor. They were hanged across several downtown sites, anywhere the rioters could find a beam to string a noose. Eight of the rioters were eventually convicted of manslaughter, but their convictions were overturned. No one else was ever punished.

Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 / 1882国会排华法案

Economic woes in the 1870s spawned another spike in anti-Asian racism and scapegoating. In 1882, Congress overwhelmingly passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which banned Chinese immigration for 20 years. President Chester A. Arthur vetoed it, but then signed another version with a 10-year ban. The first law placing a restriction on immigration to the United States, it was extended for more than 60 years before it was repealed in 1943.

‘Cheap slaves’: The ugly history of the Chinese Exclusion Act

An 1885 print depicts Chinese immigrant miners working for the Union Pacific Coal Company fleeing from armed White miners who blamed the Chinese miners for taking their jobs. (Library of Congress)

Rock Springs massacre, 1885 / 1885怀俄明屠华事件

In Rock Springs, Wyoming Territory, long-standing aggression against Chinese miners exploded in September 1885, when 100 to 150 vigilantes surrounded and attacked Chinese mineworkers, killing 28 people and burning 79 homes. Hundreds fled to a nearby town, then were tricked into boarding a train they were told would take them to safety in San Francisco. Instead, it took them back to Rock Springs, where they were forced back into the mine. Federal troops stayed for 13 years to impose order.

San Francisco plague outbreak / 1900洛杉矶疫情排华

In 1900, an outbreak of bubonic plague struck San Francisco. It is likely that the outbreak began with a ship from Australia, but since the first stateside victim was a Chinese immigrant, the whole community was blamed for it. Overnight, the city’s Chinatown was surrounded by police, preventing anyone but White residents from going in or out. Chinese residents were also subjected to home searches and property destruction by force. The episode was a prelude to the racism that has been aimed at Asian Americans during the coronavirus pandemic, which former President Donald Trump frequently called “the China virus," “the Wuhan virus,” and the “Kung Flu.”

The 1943 film "Japanese Relocation" tried to justify the government's decision to move people of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast to internment camps. (U.S. Office of War Information)

Japanese internment during World War II / 二战日裔集中营

By the 1940s, tens of thousands of Japanese immigrants and Japanese Americans had built lives in the United States. After Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and the United States entered World War II, the U.S. government forced all of them into internment camps for the duration of the war over suspicions they might aid the enemy. Conditions in the camps were extreme, blazing hot in the summer and freezing cold in the winter. No spies were ever found. When they were freed, many returned to find their homes and businesses vandalized or confiscated. In 1988, survivors received a presidential apology and $20,000 each in reparations.

Vietnamese shrimpers and the KKK / 南越渔民 vs KKK

At the close of the Vietnam War, the United States resettled many Vietnamese fleeing the communists. In Texas, many of those immigrants took up shrimping. “We like the weather, we like the shrimping, we like a chance to start our own businesses,” Nguyen Van Nam told The Washington Post in 1984. As they worked hard and began to dominate the industry, the trope of Asians coming to take White jobs returned, and this time it was wearing a white hood. Ku Klux Klan leader Louis Beam trained his members in commando-style attacks; they patrolled the waters in their regalia and set boats owned by Vietnamese people on fire.

Lily Chin holds a photograph of her son Vincent, 27, who was beaten to death in June 1982. (Richard Sheinwald/AP)

The murder of Vincent Chin / 1982陈果仁被误认为日本人，因仇日情绪酒吧外被杀害

Vincent Chin was out on the town. On June 19, 1982, the 27-year-old Chinese American was about to marry and was celebrating with friends in Detroit. Then two White men picked a bar fight, blaming Chin for “the Japanese” taking their auto-industry jobs. Outside the bar, the men beat Chin with a baseball bat. He died several days later. His assailants took a manslaughter plea bargain, which carried a possible sentence of 15 years. Instead, the judge gave the men probation and a $3,000 fine. The lenient sentence outraged and galvanized the Asian American community, helping to unite them across ethnic lines and work for civil rights.

The L.A. riots / 1992洛杉矶骚乱 韩国商店遭殃

Tensions had been building between the Black and Korean American communities in Los Angeles for years. Then came the April 29, 1992, acquittal of the police officers caught on camera beating Rodney King. As the city erupted in riots, Korean American businesses became targets; thousands were damaged during the unrest.

9/11-inspired hatred / 911后，东南亚裔被当做穆斯林杀害

After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, hate crimes spiked against Muslims and those perceived to be Muslim, including people of South Asian descent. Only four days after the attacks, aircraft mechanic Frank Silva Roque murdered Balbir Singh Sodhi, a Sikh American gas station owner originally from India, whom Roque mistook for Muslim. The post-9/11 period led to greater awareness and advocacy between the South and East Asian communities.