我早就说了，美国一个很大的竞争优势就是把穷人不当人。 如果你是一个美国普通人，你以为街头流浪汉的生活离你有多远？可能就是一次失业，一次生病，或者一次心理问题爆发。如果你没了工作，老婆不愿跟着你吃苦，房贷还不上离婚后你也没地方住。如果没有父母托底，你就住进车里了。失业拖久了车没了。

很多人很有意思。 美国的问题他们不会用自己的眼睛观察，要等到几个名人比如 Peter Thiel 这种人发话了，他们才恍然大悟一般发现简单的常识。要是大佬不发话，我怀疑他们会继续念哈耶克的经。 这偶像崇拜到了可笑的地步。

前天有个新闻，特斯拉董事会授予马斯克1万亿美元的薪酬（当然前提是完成业绩）。你琢磨这个事反映出的背后价值观和美式资本主义制度，再考虑上个世纪80年代以来经济模式的变化，那么之前存在的美式中产逐渐消失、学生债务飙升就完全是一个可以预期的事了。未来只会更加恶化，如果整个体系不改变的话

汉族是最难解构的了，因为从商周开始一直到现在，各个角度互相验证，大方向是没错的。 至于说血统血缘，你处在中国这种半开放地理环境，必然是会混杂的。 反而西方的近古还好些，远古更像神话，古迹也都诸多破绽。

中国谴责日本授予台湾原驻日代表勋章  日本外相回应 rfi.fr/cn/%E4%BA%9A%E6%B4%B2…

历史虚无主义不是这样用的，除四旧，全面西化，到刘小波的殖民300年，现在网上到处喊滞纳这些才叫做历史虚无主义

这两天Meta 被路透社 爆了个大瓜。 Meta被爆出的内部文件显示，Meta 2024年收入(是收入，不是利润)的10%、百六十亿美元来自于诈骗广告和犯罪行为。整个平台每天(注意是每天)向用户推送约一百五十亿条口诈骗和犯罪广告，甚至通过向诈骗犯收取保护费来获得高额利润。 Meta内部的用户安全团队被强力打压完全成了摆设。 报道是11/6出来的，但事儿十月末就爆出来了。

其实汉人一直没掌握这一点…好像除了秦国，之后有了军权就造反或者最差割据好像很难避免。 满清的满人将军为什么不割据？我觉得是满汉隔离造成的，这个条件很难复制。

权力斗争，你死我活。但施琅在满清就一普通将军，有一说一满清在“把握枪杆子”方面做的极其成功，先是八旗，后面皇室渗透八旗将八旗私有化，还有满汉隔离，这些手段造就了忠于皇帝但还能打的军队。

#Stahlgipfel I "Wir sprechen hier über das Schicksal einer Schlüsselindustrie", so @bundeskanzler​ Friedrich Merz. Die Zeiten offener Märkte und fairen Wettbewerbs seien vorbei, darum müsse man eigene Märkte und Hersteller schützen, deutschen und europäischen Stahl präferieren.

Career hack: Make yourself the database expert. Your colleagues will thank you.

但历史人物和你我一样，有自己的爱恨情仇，支配他们行为的，是微观机制，而不是那些宏大概念和虚无缥缈的意识形态。 施琅是民族英雄抑或满清走狗？都不是，他是一个在政治内斗中被杀了全家而寻求复仇的人。

"The person that turns over the most rocks wins the game. That's always been my philosophy." — Peter Lynch

Europe just crossed a massive red line for China: this is more provocative a move that even the US themselves EVER dared do. It never happened before. Which makes this move frankly incomprehensible: why would Europe cross a line that even the US - even when it was at the peak of its power - always considered it couldn't afford to cross? All the more for an issue where Europe has no role, and when Europe is far more dependent on Chinese trade than the US? There's nothing to gain here for Europe, and a lot to lose: this move is purely destructive. There's only one precedent I can think of: in 1995 when ROC president Lee Teng-hui spoke at Cornell University (his alma mater). This was framed as a PRIVATE visit (he spoke at a university, not Congress), and it was done at a time when China was orders of magnitude less powerful (and the US immensely more powerful relative to China), but it still sparked the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis. And, to boot, the US never repeated the experiment - Washington learned that even this lesser provocation wasn't worth the cost. In fact, nowadays the U.S. doesn't so much as allows Taiwanese officials to even transit via the U.S.: earlier this year the Trump administration blocked President Lai from merely transiting U.S. soil on his way to Latin America, forcing him to cancel his trip altogether (responsiblestatecraft.org/tr…). Yet Europe - with a fraction of America's leverage - just hosted Taiwan's VP at its Parliament. Pure madness. So why would they do that? One can only speculate. First of all this move was organized by IPAC, the so-called "Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China", a global grouping of legislators whose sole raison d'être is to escalate confrontation with China and perform anti-China theatrical gestures. Important context, IPAC was co-founded by Marco Rubio - now U.S. Secretary of State - who served as its inaugural U.S. Co-Chair. So there's a likely scenario where this move was done at the behest of Washington in order to poison relations between China and the U.S., especially at a moment when the EU is apparently discussing with China a Free-Trade Agreement (FTA) similar in spirit to the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) (x.com/fbermingham/status/198…), another EU-China FTA to which the U.S. was vehemently opposed and which they managed to torpedo. How did the US torpedo the CAI? This is where it gets interesting: with an extremely similar move. In March 2021 they got EU parliamentarians to impose sanctions on four Chinese officials (politico.eu/article/eu-impos…) because they were linked to the so-called "Uyghur genocide", knowing full well that this would invite Chinese retaliation. And sure enough China responded by sanctioning EU officials, which immediately led all the Atlanticist MPs in the EU to scream bloody murder: "how could they do this to us? This unprovoked aggression is absolutely unacceptable! We cannot possibly do a trade deal under those conditions! Bla, bla, bla". The CAI was dead. More details on the CAI move here: x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1… So that could be a scenario: Washington orchestrated this provocation through IPAC to trigger Chinese retaliation, giving Atlanticist MEPs the pretext to kill EU-China trade talks - all as a way to ensure Europe remains America's economic chasse gardée, limiting EU-China economic integration. The exact same playbook that worked to destroy the CAI in 2021. Under this scenario, ironically the U.S. doesn't want to anger China themselves because they want maximum room to maneuver in their own bilateral relationship. A strategic flexibility they don't want Europe to have. There could also, interestingly, be an exact opposite reading: European Atlanticists deliberately sabotaging the warming US-China relationship and Trump's "G2" overtures. Host Taiwan's VP → provoke Chinese retaliation → weaponize the crisis to force US escalation → make Trump-Xi accommodation politically impossible. The nightmare scenario for European Atlanticists is a US-China grand bargain that marginalizes Europe entirely, so they engineer provocations that make such a deal untenable. Though, let's be clear, this assumes a level of strategic sophistication that seems beyond the current crop of European parliamentarians. But who knows... Or it could also very well be simpler than all that: Atlanticist MEPs acting out of pure ideological conviction - European politicians who are so detached from the material realities of power, so marinated in transatlantic think tank talking points, and frankly so irresponsible, that they'll sacrifice European interests on the altar of their own moral self-image - treating great power relations as an opportunity for virtue signaling, consequences be damned. Or it could be a mix of the above, or something else entirely. One thing is sure though: this undoubtedly WILL further poison EU-China relations, which IS against EU interests because Europe's optimal strategic position is to maintain better relations with both Washington and Beijing than they have with each other. That's where Europe's leverage lies - as the balancer, the one both sides need to court. That's how you extract concessions and preserve options. This move destroys this optionality and shows that Europe - through manipulation, ideology, or sheer strategic incompetence - continues waging a war of anti-independence against itself.

加密货币市场仅用一个多月时间，便抹去今年以来几乎所有的市值涨幅。 zaobao.com.sg/realtime/world…

I keep telling you guys. This is literal psychological warfare being waged against you by "our greatest ally".

所以，中国的历史，越读越聪明，共产党的秽史，越读越蠢。读秽史的人，陷在各种意识形态与宏大概念中不可自拔，对于历史人物，非得按照它心中的狂想，给其涂脂抹粉，直到满足自己的偏好。 而且因为愚蠢的方向不一样，蠢人最喜欢就一个历史人物到底是红脸还是白脸争论不休。

中国文化中的史学自有其传统。一是其关注点在人而不在事，二是秉笔直书。 比如《史记》中的刘邦项羽之争，你读完了你知道胜败如何由双方领袖的性格和战略决定，但刘邦不是没有缺点的完人，项羽也不是毫无可取之处。只是他们在竞争中，一胜一败而已。而真正的史学，帮读者理解胜败之所由。