history

2025年9月15日星期一

Immortality Talk: Putin, Xi, and the Search for Longevity

During a recent military parade in Beijing, a conversation between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping was caught on a hot microphone, where they mused about the possibility of living to 150 years or even achieving "immortality" through modern biotechnology. This exchange highlights the global fascination with extending human life. Putin specifically mentioned continuous organ transplants as a potential way to live "younger and younger."

The Science of Longevity: Organ Transplants vs. Telomeres

The idea of using organ transplants to achieve radical longevity is largely considered science fiction. While transplants can save and extend lives by replacing failing organs, they are not a cure for aging itself. Organs wear out over time, and a transplanted organ will also eventually fail. A person would need an endless supply of compatible organs, and the rest of their body—including the brain, bones, and muscles—would still be subject to aging and decay. It's a bit like trying to make an old car last forever by constantly replacing its parts; at some point, the chassis itself gives out.

A more scientifically grounded approach to longevity is the study of telomeres. These are the protective caps at the ends of our chromosomes that shorten with each cell division. When they become too short, cells can no longer divide and die, contributing to the aging process. Scientists like Nobel laureate Elizabeth Blackburn have shown that factors like chronic stress, poor diet, and lack of exercise can accelerate telomere shortening. The key to longevity, therefore, may not be replacing entire organs, but rather slowing down the aging process at a cellular level by protecting telomeres.

The Legend of Xu Fu

This modern quest for immortality brings to mind an ancient legend from Chinese history. During the Qin Dynasty, Emperor Qin Shi Huang, obsessed with living forever, sent his court alchemist Xu Fu on a quest to find the elixir of life. The expedition included a massive fleet and a legion of 500 youths (some accounts say 3,000 boys and girls). While the traditional story says these youths were a sacrifice or an offering to the immortals, a more cynical, and unproven, interpretation suggests a darker purpose. Given the recent conversation between Putin and Xi about organ transplants, one could invent a modern theory that these youths were not just companions, but a source of "spare parts" for the Emperor in his desperate quest for immortality. Of course, there is no historical evidence to support this idea; it remains purely a dark, speculative fantasy.

The parallels between the ancient Emperor and modern leaders are striking: both possess immense power and wealth, yet they face the same inescapable mortality as everyone else. Their public fascination with longevity underscores a universal human desire to defy death, whether through mythical elixirs or cutting-edge biotechnology.

Here's a video on the Putin-Xi discussion about longevity. Putin says he discussed longevity, immortality with Xi Jinping. Putin says he discussed longevity, immortality with Xi Jinping • FRANCE 24 EnglishFRANCE 24 English · 15K views

為何安樂死應為國家責任

安樂死這個議題既深奧又艱難，關乎面對苦難時的自主權和尊嚴。在英國議會對此的辯論中，一個核心論點源於國家在處理個人健康決策上存在的根本性矛盾。儘管生病或變老是個人歷程，但國家卻深度參與協助治療。因此，同樣的邏輯也應該適用於協助死亡。

核心矛盾

國家已經在我們的醫療保健中扮演著舉足輕重的角色。我們有英國國民保健署（NHS），提供廣泛的治療和照護，旨在幫助人們康復和延續生命。這包括從簡單的藥物到複雜的救命手術。我們每年花費數十億英鎊在醫生、醫院和醫療研究上。這是一種國家協助治療的形式，我們普遍認為這是政府一項必要且道德的職能。

這種國家介入並未被視為侵犯，反而是支持公民健康和福祉的基本責任。我們不會說治療癌症是個人私事，應留給個人及其家庭獨自處理。相反，我們建立了一個公共系統來提供協助。

如果國家如此深度地參與協助人們生存，為何當一個人面臨無法治癒且無法忍受的痛苦，並希望終結生命時，國家的責任就停止了？在這種情況下，結束自己生命的決定，與尋求治療疾病的決定一樣是個人化的。拒絕協助死亡，等於是說國家可以幫助你活下去，卻不能幫助你離世，即使活著已成為當事人不願再承受的負擔。這在我們的醫療保健系統中製造了一種道德和倫理上的不平衡。

解決疑慮

當然，對於協助死亡存在著重大的疑慮。潛在的陰謀、對弱勢個體的施壓以及倫理問題都非常真實，且必須得到解決。然而，這些擔憂並非無法克服。許多國家已實施了帶有嚴格保障措施的協助死亡法，包括：

多名醫生批准：要求不止一名醫生確認病患的末期診斷和心智能力。
等候期：確保該決定不是一時衝動。
病患自我施用：在某些情況下，病人必須自己服用最後的藥物，以確保該行為是完全自願的。
心理健康評估：確認病患沒有患上可治療的抑鬱症或其他可能影響其決定的心理疾病。

這些保障措施證明，建立一個既尊重個人自主權又保護弱勢群體的系統是可能的。辯論的焦點不應是是否允許協助死亡，而是如何以安全和充滿同情心的方式實施。

總而言之，如果國家的角色是在公民最脆弱的時刻提供協助，那麼這份責任必須同時涵蓋生存和死亡。僅提供協助治療的公共服務卻不提供協助死亡，這是一種邏輯和倫理上的矛盾，英國議會應該加以解決。

Why Assisted Dying Is a State Responsibility

The question of assisted dying is a deeply personal and difficult one. It's an issue of autonomy and dignity in the face of suffering. In the UK Parliament's debate on this topic, a core argument emerges from a fundamental inconsistency in how the state treats personal health decisions. While getting sick or old are personal processes, the state is heavily involved in assisted healing. Therefore, the same logic dictates that the state should also be involved in assisted dying.

The Core Inconsistency

The state already plays a massive role in our healthcare. We have a National Health Service (NHS) that provides a wide range of treatments and care, all designed to help people heal and prolong life.¹ This includes everything from simple medications to complex, life-saving surgeries. We spend billions of pounds each year on doctors, hospitals, and medical research.² This is a form of state-assisted healing, and we collectively agree that it's a necessary and moral function of government.

This state involvement is not seen as an intrusion; rather, it's a fundamental duty to support the health and well-being of citizens. We don't say that treating cancer is a personal matter and should be left to the individual and their family alone. Instead, we have a public system in place to assist.

If the state is so deeply involved in assisting people to live, why does its responsibility stop at the point where a person, facing incurable and unbearable suffering, wishes to die? The decision to end one's life under these circumstances is just as personal as the decision to seek treatment for an illness. To deny assisted dying is to say that the state can help you live but cannot help you die, even when living has become a burden that a person no longer wishes to bear. This creates a moral and ethical imbalance in our healthcare system.

Addressing Concerns

Of course, there are significant concerns about assisted dying. The risk of foul play, pressure on vulnerable individuals, and ethical issues are very real and must be addressed. However, these concerns are not insurmountable. Many countries have already implemented assisted dying laws with strict safeguards, including:

Multiple physician approvals: Requiring more than one doctor to confirm the patient's terminal diagnosis and mental capacity.
Waiting periods: Ensuring the decision is not made impulsively.
Patient self-administration: In some cases, the patient must be the one to take the final dose, ensuring the act is truly voluntary.³
Mental health evaluations: To confirm the patient is not suffering from treatable depression or other mental health conditions that may be influencing their decision.

These safeguards demonstrate that it is possible to create a system that respects individual autonomy while protecting the vulnerable. The debate should not be about whether to allow assisted dying, but how to implement it safely and compassionately.

In conclusion, if the state's role is to assist its citizens in their most vulnerable moments, then that responsibility must extend to both living and dying. To provide a public service for assisted healing but not for assisted dying is a logical and ethical contradiction that the UK Parliament should resolve.

時間問題：我們為何不將時間測量納入國際單位制（SI）？

我們不將時間測量納入公制系統，是因為我們目前以 60 秒、60 分鐘和 24 小時為基礎的計時方式，已經深深植根於我們的文化和技術中。改變它將會造成巨大的混亂，並且幾乎沒有任何實際好處。與長度或重量不同（它們的十進制系統提供了直接的換算，例如 1000 克等於 1 公斤），一個以十進制為基礎的時間系統會破壞我們所有的時鐘、日曆和根深蒂固的習慣。

我們不改變時間測量的所有原因

以下是我們堅持使用舊系統的主要原因：

1. 歷史與文化的惰性： 我們目前的系統非常古老，可追溯到使用六十進制計數系統的蘇美爾人和巴比倫人。這個以 12 和 60 為關鍵數字的系統貫穿了整個歷史，是我們共同人類經驗的一部分。

2. 可分割性： 數字 60 是一個高度可除盡的數字。這意味著它可以被許多其他數字整除（1、2、3、4、5、6、10、12、15、20、30 和 60）。這對於將時間分割成相等的部分（例如半小時或四分之一小時）非常有用。這使得我們目前的系統在日常使用中比十進制系統更具彈性，因為十進制只能被 2 和 5 整除。

3. SI 單位制已經在使用中： 時間的國際單位制（SI）單位是「秒」。它根據銫-133 原子輻射的頻率，利用原子鐘進行精確定義。因此，雖然我們沒有時間的公制系統（如公里或公斤），但其基本單位已經是國際單位制的一部分。我們沒有為分鐘或小時設置公制前綴，因為科學和工程計算已將秒作為基本單位，所以沒有必要。

4. 它沒有壞掉： 目前的系統完全能夠滿足我們所有的需求。從一個簡單的廚房計時器到最複雜的火箭發射，我們的 60 秒分鐘和 24 小時一天都非常精確且廣為人知。改變它並不能解決任何實際問題。

5. 天文基礎： 我們的一天是以地球的自轉為基礎，而一年是以其繞太陽公轉為基礎。雖然這些都不是完美的 24 小時週期，但它們是我們存在的基本依據。一個公制系統將會強制性地任意且令人困惑地劃分一天，使我們的時鐘與太陽脫節。

6. 巨大的成本和混亂： 想像一下更換世界上每一個時鐘。數字手錶、機械鐘、電腦系統，甚至我們的語言都必須改變。這將是一場經濟和物流的惡夢，並造成一段前所未有的全球混亂時期。

7. 有趣的原因一： 想像一下，你想說「五點半」。在一個公制系統中，你可能必須說「5.25 百分鐘」或「5.50 公時」。這聽起來一點也不順口！ 🤪

8. 有趣的原因二： 在新系統下，你將不再能「遲到得很時尚」。你只會「落後 1.789 百分之一公時」，這聽起來一點也不酷。 😜

12 個標籤

1. 歷史惰性

2. 60 的可除盡性

3. SI 單位是「秒」

4. 無實際益處

5. 天文基礎

6. 全球混亂

7. 經濟成本

8. 文化融合

9. 十進制不便

10. 「沒壞就別修」

11. 有趣的語言

12. 時尚地遲到

The Time Problem: Why We Don't Use a Metric System for Time

We don't use a metric system for time because our current timekeeping, based on 60 seconds, 60 minutes, and 24 hours, is deeply ingrained in our culture and technology.¹ Changing it would be incredibly disruptive and offer very few practical benefits. Unlike length or weight, where a base-10 system provides straightforward scaling (e.g., 1000 grams in a kilogram), a base-10 system for time would break all our clocks, calendars, and ingrained habits.

All the Reasons Why We Don't Change Time

Here are the key reasons why we stick to the old system:

1. Historical and Cultural Inertia: Our current system is ancient, dating back to the Sumerians and Babylonians who used a base-60 counting system. This system, with 12 and 60 as key numbers, is found throughout history and is part of our shared human experience.

2. Divisibility: The number 60 is a highly composite number.² This means it can be divided evenly by many other numbers (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, 30, and 60).³ This is incredibly useful for splitting time into equal parts, like half-hours or quarter-hours. This makes our current system more flexible for everyday use than a base-10 system, which is only divisible by 2 and 5.

3. The SI System is Already In Use: The SI unit of time is the second.⁴ It's defined precisely using atomic clocks, based on the radiation of a cesium-133 atom.⁵ So, while we don't have a metric system (like kilometers or kilograms) for time, the fundamental unit is already part of the SI system. We just don't have metric prefixes for minutes or hours because they are not necessary for scientific and engineering calculations which already use seconds as the base unit.

4. It's Not Broken: The current system works perfectly well for all our needs. From a simple kitchen timer to the most complex rocket launch, our 60-second minute and 24-hour day are perfectly precise and widely understood. There's no practical problem that a change would solve.

5. The Astronomical Basis: Our day is based on the Earth's rotation, and our year on its orbit around the sun. While these aren't perfect 24-hour cycles, they are fundamental to our existence. A metric system would force a completely arbitrary and confusing division of the day, disconnecting our clocks from the sun.

6. Massive Cost and Chaos: Imagine trying to replace every single clock in the world. Digital watches, mechanical clocks, computer systems, and even our language would have to be changed. It would be an economic and logistical nightmare, causing a period of unprecedented global chaos.

7. Funny Reason #1: Imagine asking for "half past 5." In a metric system, you'd have to say "5.25 hundred-minutes" or "5.50-metric hours." It just doesn't roll off the tongue! 🤪

8. Funny Reason #2: Under a new system, you'd never be "fashionably late" again. You'd just be "1.789 centi-hours" behind schedule, which sounds way less cool. 😜

英國能源危機的積極應對方案

重新校準激勵：英國能源危機的積極應對方案

英國的住房與能源危機，其根源在於低效的建築存量。這不僅需要改變住房策略，還需要從根本上改變能源公司的商業模式。雖然建造現代化、節能住宅是一個長遠目標，但當務之急是解決現有的低效問題。一個重要的障礙是能源供應商目前的收入模式，這與節約能源的目標直接衝突。本文主張改變衡量和補償能源公司的方式，提出一種將其盈利與減少能源消耗而非增加其消耗量掛鉤的制度。

現行模式的缺陷

目前，能源公司透過銷售瓦斯和電力單位（以千瓦時，或kWh為單位）來產生收入和利潤。他們的客戶消耗的能源越多，他們的銷售額就越高，利潤也隨之增加。這為公司積極推廣或投資於能源效率措施（如家庭隔熱升級、安裝智慧電表或更高效的暖氣系統）創造了一個巨大的阻力。

儘管一些公司可能參與政府規定的效率計畫，但他們的核心商業利益仍然與能源消耗掛鉤。這種內在的利益衝突意味著，即使有良好的意圖，這個系統的設計也旨在延續它聲稱要解決的問題：高能源使用、高賬單和高碳排放。政府為補貼賬單和資助效率計畫所做的努力，只是在治療症狀，而不是解決這種市場失靈的根本原因。

一項提案：「效率即服務」模式

為了重新校準激勵，我們必須將能源公司成功的衡量標準從銷售單位轉變為節約單位。政府應引入一個監管框架，允許並鼓勵能源供應商從其客戶的能源節約中獲利。

這可以通過以下方式實現：

設定基線：對於每個家庭或企業，根據歷史數據建立一個能源消耗基線。這個基線將作為衡量效率提升的起點。
基於績效的補償：能源公司將獲得其供應能源的保證利潤，但他們也將因客戶在基線之下節約的每一單位能源而獲得補償。例如，如果一個家庭的年平均消耗量為10,000 kWh，而能源公司幫助他們將其降至8,000 kWh，該公司將為節約的2,000 kWh獲得預定的付款。
第三方驗證：獨立審計師將驗證節約情況，以防止欺詐並確保報告準確。這將保證能源公司是真正在幫助客戶節約能源。

這個模式將能源公司從單純的商品銷售者轉變為能源服務夥伴。他們的財務成功將直接取決於他們幫助客戶提高房屋效率的能力。這將激勵他們投資於房屋改造、提供專家建議並在節能技術上進行創新。

重新校準激勵的好處

這項提案為解決危機提供了一條可行且合理的道路。它對所有各方都有利：

對於消費者：更低的能源賬單和更舒適的家居，且無需獨自應對複雜的政府補助計畫。
對於能源公司：一個穩定且可預測的收入來源，較不易受到市場波動的影響。他們可以成為能源轉型中真正的夥伴。
對於英國政府：顯著減少對昂貴賬單補貼的需求，朝著淨零排放邁出重要一步，並透過減少進口依賴來增強能源安全。

通過改變遊戲規則，我們可以將能源危機從一個問題轉變為一個機遇，將市場上最大的參與者變成實現可持續未來的最強大盟友。

A Proactive Approach to the UK's Energy Crisis

Realigning Incentives: A Proactive Approach to the UK's Energy Crisis

The UK's housing and energy crisis, rooted in its inefficient building stock, requires not only a shift in housing strategy but also a fundamental change in the business model of energy companies. While building modern, energy-efficient homes is a long-term goal, immediate action is needed to tackle the existing inefficiency. A significant barrier to this is the current revenue model of energy suppliers, which directly conflicts with the goals of energy conservation. This paper argues for a change in how energy companies are measured and compensated, proposing a system where their profitability is linked to reducing energy consumption, not increasing it.

The Flaw in the Current Model

Currently, energy companies generate revenue and profit by selling units of gas and electricity (measured in kilowatt-hours, or kWh). The more energy their customers consume, the higher their sales and, consequently, their profits. This creates a powerful disincentive for companies to actively promote or invest in energy efficiency measures, such as home insulation upgrades, smart meter installations, or more efficient heating systems.

While some companies may participate in government-mandated efficiency schemes, their core business interest remains tied to consumption. This inherent conflict of interest means that even with good intentions, the system is designed to perpetuate the very problem it claims to solve: high energy use, high bills, and high carbon emissions. The government's efforts to subsidize bills and fund efficiency programs are merely treating the symptoms, not the underlying cause of this market failure.

A Proposal: The "Efficiency-as-a-Service" Model

To realign incentives, we must change the metric of success for energy companies from units sold to units saved. The government should introduce a regulatory framework that allows and encourages energy suppliers to profit from their customers' energy reductions.

This can be achieved by:

Setting a Baseline: For each household or business, a baseline of energy consumption would be established based on historical data. This baseline would serve as the starting point for measuring efficiency gains.
Performance-Based Compensation: Energy companies would be granted a guaranteed profit margin on the energy they supply, but they would also be compensated for every unit of energy their customers save below the baseline. For example, if a home's average consumption is 10,000 kWh per year and the energy company helps them reduce it to 8,000 kWh, the company would receive a pre-determined payment for the 2,000 kWh saved.
Third-Party Verification: Independent auditors would verify the reductions to prevent fraud and ensure accurate reporting. This would guarantee that energy companies are genuinely helping their customers save energy.

This model transforms energy companies from simple commodity sellers into energy service partners.² Their financial success would directly depend on their ability to help customers make homes more efficient. This would incentivize them to invest in home retrofits, provide expert advice, and innovate in energy-saving technologies.

The Benefits of Realigned Incentives

This proposal offers a workable and reasonable path to solving the crisis. It benefits all parties:

For Consumers: Lower energy bills and more comfortable homes, without having to navigate complex government grant schemes on their own.
For Energy Companies: A stable and predictable revenue stream that is less vulnerable to market volatility. They can become true partners in the energy transition.
For the UK Government: A significant reduction in the need for costly bill subsidies, a major step toward net-zero emissions, and enhanced energy security through reduced import dependency.

By changing the rules of the game, we can transform the energy crisis from a problem to an opportunity, turning the biggest players in the market into the most powerful allies for a sustainable future.

英國老舊房屋與能源困境

危機的根源：英國老舊房屋與能源困境

英國正應對一場涵蓋住房短缺、能源費用飆升以及實現淨零排放目標等錯綜複雜的危機。儘管這些問題看似各自獨立，但其根源卻是相互關聯的：即英國老舊且隔熱性能差的房屋存量。相當一部分的英國住宅，尤其是那些建於1980年以前的，能源效率極低，導致大量的熱量散失、高昂的公用事業費用，以及對進口能源的依賴。國家不願放棄其傳統的、通常具有美學價值的住宅，轉而選擇現代、高效的替代品，這使危機更加惡化。

低效率的歷史

英國的房屋市場因其年代久遠而聞名。超過40%的房屋建於1944年之前，而驚人的70%則建於1980年之前。儘管外觀迷人，這些老舊房屋的建造並未達到現代隔熱標準。它們通常採用單層玻璃窗、薄牆且缺乏適當的密封，使其像個熱能篩子。這種低效率迫使家庭消耗更多的能源——主要是天然氣供暖——以維持舒適的溫度。隔熱差與高能源消耗之間的直接關聯，是生活成本危機的核心驅動力。

經濟與環境的後果

能源低效率帶來的後果是嚴重且廣泛的。在家庭層面，許多家庭面臨著令人難以承受的能源賬單，導致許多人陷入燃料貧困。而政府為了緩解這些成本，被迫提供數十億英鎊的補貼和支援計畫，這給公共財政帶來了沉重負擔。[一張顯示典型英國房屋熱量損失的圖表]

在國家層面，英國對進口天然氣和石油的依賴使其容易受到國際能源市場波動的影響，最近的價格飆升就證明了這一點。這種依賴不僅消耗國家經濟，也損害能源安全。此外，住宅供暖是碳排放的主要來源。房屋能源性能不佳直接阻礙了英國到2050年實現淨零排放的法定承諾。

解決方案：轉向現代住宅

解決這場危機的方案在於根本性地改變房屋策略。英國應該優先在市中心建設高密度、高能源效率的塔樓，而不是保留低效的老舊住宅。這些現代建築可以設計成具有優越的隔熱性能、雙層或三層玻璃窗，並整合再生能源系統（如太陽能板和熱泵），從而大幅減少其能源足跡。

在市中心向上建設將在更小的土地面積上創造數以千計的新住宅，從而解決住房短缺問題。這也將減少通勤需求，因為居民將更接近工作地點，進一步減少排放。這種轉變所帶來的能源節約將能緩解家庭的財政壓力，減少政府的補貼支出，並降低對能源進口的依賴。儘管傳統住宅的美學和文化價值無可否認，但維護它們所付出的經濟和環境成本已不再可持續。

UK's Old Housing Stock and the Energy Conundrum

The Root of a Crisis: UK's Old Housing Stock and the Energy Conundrum

The United Kingdom is grappling with a multi-faceted crisis encompassing housing shortages, exorbitant energy costs, and an urgent need to meet net-zero emissions targets. While these issues may seem distinct, their root cause is interconnected: the nation's aging and poorly insulated housing stock. A significant percentage of UK homes, particularly those built before 1980, are energy inefficient, leading to massive heat loss, high utility bills, and a dependency on foreign energy imports. The country's reluctance to abandon its traditional, often aesthetically cherished, housing for modern, efficient alternatives exacerbates this crisis.

A History of Inefficiency

The UK's housing market is defined by its age. Over 40% of the homes were built before 1944, and a staggering 70% were constructed before 1980. While charming in appearance, these older homes were built without modern insulation standards. They feature single-pane windows, thin walls, and a lack of proper sealing, making them a thermal sieve. This inefficiency forces households to consume significantly more energy—primarily natural gas for heating—to maintain a comfortable temperature. This direct link between poor insulation and high energy consumption is a core driver of the cost-of-living crisis.

The Economic and Environmental Fallout

The consequences of this energy inefficiency are severe and widespread. At the household level, families face crippling energy bills, pushing many into fuel poverty. The government, in turn, is forced to provide billions of pounds in subsidies and support programs to mitigate these costs, adding a significant burden to public finances.

On a national scale, the UK's dependence on imported natural gas and oil leaves it vulnerable to volatile international energy markets, as evidenced by the recent price spikes. This dependency not only drains the national economy but also undermines energy security. Furthermore, residential heating is a major source of carbon emissions. The poor energy performance of the housing stock directly obstructs the UK's legally binding commitment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.

The Solution: A Shift to Modern Housing

The solution to this crisis lies in a fundamental change in housing strategy. Instead of preserving inefficient older homes, the UK should prioritize the construction of high-density, energy-efficient tower blocks in urban centers. These modern buildings can be designed with superior insulation, double or triple-glazed windows, and integrated renewable energy systems (like solar panels and heat pumps), drastically reducing their energy footprint.

Building upwards in city centers would address the housing shortage by creating thousands of new homes on a smaller land area. It would also reduce the need for commuting, as residents would be closer to workplaces, further cutting down on emissions. The energy savings from such a shift would alleviate household financial strain, reduce the government's subsidy expenditure, and decrease reliance on energy imports. While the aesthetic and cultural value of traditional homes is undeniable, the economic and environmental costs of maintaining them are no longer sustainable.

針對人才外流的關稅：收回印度失去的財富

一項針對人才外流的關稅提案：收回印度失去的財富

印度長期以來一直是高技能專業人才的主要輸出國，這些人才為了更好的機會移民到美國，這種現象通常被稱為人才外流（brain drain）。儘管這種移民對美國經濟來說是個福音，但對印度而言，這卻是巨大且未獲補償的損失。本文主張，印度應考慮對美國徵收人才外流關稅，以收回其在這些專業人士教育上所投入的部分資金，並承認這種人力與知識資產的轉移價值。

未獲補償的投資

印度的公共教育體系，從著名的印度理工學院（IITs）到其醫學院，投入了數十億美元來培養人才。由政府補貼的醫學或工程學學位成本，是一項社會投資。當畢業生離開時，他們的離去代表著這項投資直接轉移到了目的地國。幾十年來，美國一直是這項轉移的主要受益者，它在不承擔教育和成長初期成本的情況下，獲得了一支高技能勞動力。這種未獲補償的人力資本轉移造成了不公平的經濟失衡。

量化損失：在美印度人才的概況

這種移民的規模令人震驚，尤其是在關鍵領域。以下數字展示了印度向美國輸出人才的深度：

醫生與外科醫生：印度裔醫生在美國醫療體系中佔據了相當大的比例。美國印裔醫師協會（AAPI）估計，在美國執業的印度裔醫生超過80,000人，佔醫生總數的至少8.5%。印度是向美國提供國際醫學畢業生最多的國家。
科學家與博士：美國安全與新興技術中心（CSET）2017年的一份報告發現，在美國完成STEM（科學、技術、工程和數學）博士學位的印度國民中，絕大多數選擇留在美國。從2000年到2015年，超過28,000名印度國民獲得了美國大學的STEM博士學位，佔所有國際畢業生的近16%。
高層主管與創新者：特別是在科技產業，印度裔領導者的崛起引人注目。[圖片為美國主要公司印度裔CEO] 桑達爾·皮查伊（谷歌/Alphabet）、薩提亞·納德拉（微軟）和沙坦努·納拉延（Adobe）等人物，只是印度出生的個人領導世界上一些最有價值公司的幾個例子。他們的領導力創造了數萬億美元的市值並推動了全球創新，而美國則收穫了主要的經濟回報。

這些人不僅僅是員工，他們是創新者、領導者和企業家，他們創造就業、申請專利並對美國經濟做出巨大貢獻。他們一生中賺取的收入、繳納的稅款和產生的知識產權價值是巨大的——這些財富是在印度培養出來的，現在卻在充實另一個國家。

徵收關稅的理由

雖然直接對個人徵稅不切實際且在政治上複雜，但可以將「人才外流關稅」視為一種解決這種失衡的經濟工具。這項關稅不是向個人徵稅，而是向僱用一定數量印度專業人士的美國政府或企業收取費用。這將如同為所獲得的人力與知識資本支付特許權使用費。所產生的收入可用於：

資助印度研發：這些錢可以重新投資於印度的研究機構、大學和實驗室，以改善基礎設施，為國內人才創造更多機會。
改善社會基礎設施：資金可用於改善印度的醫療、教育和其他公共服務，提高生活質量，使國家對其高技能勞動力更具吸引力。
提供回流激勵：部分資金可以建立回國計劃，提供有吸引力的資助、研究資金和高薪工作，以鼓勵印度專業人士回國並貢獻他們的專業知識。

這項提案並非旨在懲罰，而是承認一種清晰的經濟交換。這將迫使美國承認其引進人才的真實成本，並為印度提供一種獲得其投資補償的機制。通過確立這項主張，印度可以開啟一場關於人才移民經濟公平性的全球對話，並保護其長期利益。

Brain Drain Tariff: Reclaiming India's Lost Wealth

A Proposal for a Brain Drain Tariff: Reclaiming India's Lost Wealth

India has long been a source of highly skilled professionals who migrate to the United States for better opportunities, a phenomenon commonly known as brain drain. While this migration has been a boon for the U.S. economy, it represents a significant, uncompensated loss for India. This paper argues that India should consider imposing a brain drain tariff on the United States to recover a portion of the investment made in educating these professionals and to acknowledge the economic and intellectual value that has been transferred.

The Uncompensated Investment

India's public education system, from its prestigious Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) to its medical colleges, invests billions of dollars in nurturing talent. The cost of a medical degree or an engineering degree, when subsidized by the government, is a societal investment. When a graduate leaves, their departure represents a direct transfer of this investment to the destination country. For decades, the U.S. has been the primary beneficiary of this transfer, gaining a highly skilled workforce without bearing the initial costs of their education and upbringing. This uncompensated transfer of human capital creates an unfair economic imbalance.

Quantifying the Loss: A Snapshot of Indian Talent in the USA

The scale of this migration is staggering, especially in key sectors. The following numbers provide a glimpse into the depth of India's talent export to the U.S.:

Physicians and Surgeons: Indian-origin physicians make up a substantial portion of the U.S. healthcare system. The American Association of Physicians of Indian Origin (AAPI) estimates that over 80,000 physicians of Indian descent are practicing in the U.S., accounting for at least 8.5% of the total physician population. India provides the largest number of International Medical Graduates to the U.S.
Scientists and PhDs: A 2017 report by the U.S.-based Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET) found that a significant majority of Indian nationals who complete a STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) Ph.D. in the U.S. choose to stay. Between 2000 and 2015, over 28,000 Indian nationals earned STEM Ph.D.s from U.S. universities, accounting for nearly 16% of all international graduates.
C-level Executives and Innovators: The tech industry, in particular, has seen a remarkable ascent of Indian-origin leaders. Icons like Sundar Pichai (Google/Alphabet), Satya Nadella (Microsoft), and Shantanu Narayen (Adobe) are just a few examples of Indian-born individuals who now lead some of the world's most valuable companies. Their leadership has generated trillions of dollars in market capitalization and driven global innovation, with the U.S. reaping the primary economic rewards.

These individuals are not just employees; they are innovators, leaders, and entrepreneurs who create jobs, file patents, and contribute disproportionately to the U.S. economy. The value of their lifetime earnings, tax contributions, and intellectual property generated is immense—wealth that was cultivated in India and is now enriching another nation.

The Case for a Tariff

While a direct tax on individuals is impractical and politically complex, a "brain drain tariff" could be conceptualized as an economic tool to address this imbalance. Instead of taxing the people, the tariff would be a charge levied on the U.S. government or corporations that hire a certain number of Indian professionals. This would function like a royalty payment for the intellectual and human capital gained. The revenue generated could be used to:

Fund Indian Research and Development: The money could be reinvested in Indian research institutes, universities, and laboratories to improve infrastructure and create more opportunities for domestic talent.
Improve Social Infrastructure: Funds could be used to enhance healthcare, education, and other public services in India, improving the quality of life and making the country a more attractive place to stay for its skilled workforce.
Provide Reverse Migration Incentives: A portion of the funds could create repatriation programs, offering attractive grants, research funding, and high-paying jobs to encourage Indian professionals to return and contribute their expertise back home.

This proposal is not meant to be a punishment but a recognition of a clear economic exchange. It would force the U.S. to acknowledge the true cost of the talent it imports and provide a mechanism for India to be compensated for its investment. By establishing this claim, India can start a global conversation about the economic fairness of talent migration and protect its long-term interests.

2025年9月10日星期三

古有馭民之術，今有引導之學：愚民五策與輕推理論之辨

古有馭民之術，今有引導之學：愚民五策與輕推理論之辨

愚民五策，古之馭民之道也；輕推理論，今之引導之學也。二者雖相隔千載，理異途殊，然皆關乎治民、動眾之術。其所異者，在於意圖、方法及倫理之別也。

愚民五策：以愚治民，直接操控

「愚民五策」乃古之為政者，所以固權安民之術也。其要旨，在於主動抑制民智、禁絕思維、削弱自主，以求自上而下之掌控。

其五策之常解如下：

弱民： 使民體魄不強，經濟困頓，從而仰賴於國，無力反抗。
愚民： 禁學、禁思，閉塞視聽，使民不知他途，不識己力。其道在於推行淺陋之說，杜絕深究之念。
疲民： 勞役不息，瑣事不休，使民疲於奔命，無暇參與政事，亦無力深思。
辱民： 貶抑民之尊嚴，使其自輕自賤，不生反抗之心。
貧民： 使民常處貧困，無資財以結黨獨立，遂無反抗之本。

此五策之根本，在於系統性地削弱個體能力與群體意識，以息異議而固權柄。

輕推理論：間接引導，微調架構

輕推理論，乃現代行為經濟學之新學。其論，謂可巧改「選擇架構」，即決策環境，間接而微地引導人眾，使其做出於己有利或合於社稷之選擇，而不限其自由。其道非強迫，乃引導也。

其例有：

預設： 默認人眾加入養老金或器官捐獻，雖可退出。
表述： 換其言辭，以顯其美（如「90%無脂」而非「10%含脂」）。
社會佐證： 告以「鄰里多已行之」，以促其行。
顯著性： 於顯眼處陳列健康之食。

輕推理論之初衷，多為善意：或為增進民康，或為鼓勵儲蓄，或為環保，或為敦促公民參與。

輕推之影：現代「愚民」之憂

二者雖源流各異，意圖殊途，然深究其弊，則輕推理論之失用，其術與愚民五策之「愚民」相若，令人悚然。

繞過理性： 二者皆可繞過個體之理性思維與自覺判斷。愚民五策以資訊封鎖，養育無知；輕推理論則以操弄認知偏差與潛意識，使人不明其故而為之。
資訊與權力之不對稱： 二者皆基於資訊與權力之懸殊。為政者或輕推者，其所知之術，民之所無，故能左右環境，以利己身。
操縱「選擇」與消弭選擇： 愚民五策意在限制選項、泯滅知識，以消弭選擇。輕推理論雖保留選擇（可退出），然其「所欲」之選項，易為至極或誘人至微，實則使人無真思慮而順從。自由選擇與「受導向」之選擇，其界日漸模糊。
仁慈家長與惡意操控： 輕推學家倡言「自由家長主義」，謂引導而保自由。然其用於廣告或自利政客之手，此「家長」則化為操控，所導之選，非為民善，乃為己利。如此，則微妙之心理影響，實能「愚民」，使人不知其所以然地做出決策，彷彿重演古之「愚民」之術。

結語

愚民五策，古之術也，其法顯赫而殘酷，以直接壓制、精神禁錮而治之。輕推理論，今之學也，其術幽微而良善，以環境設計而引導。然此二者之比，乃警世之言也：輕推之微妙與心理力量，固可為善，然一入惡手，則為巧詐之術，實成現代「愚民」之效——民眾於無覺中被導，所作之決，皆為他人設計，終損其自主之權。其間之別，在於影響之是否透明，意圖之善惡，以及其最終對個體自主權之深遠影響也。

Ancient Control vs. Modern Persuasion: A Look at 愚民五策 and Nudge Theory

While separated by centuries and vastly different philosophical underpinnings, a critical comparison can be drawn between the historical concept of the 中国愚民五策 (Zhōngguó Yúmín Wǔcè, or "Five Policies to Stupefy the People of China") and the modern Nudge Theory. Both, in their broadest interpretation, concern methods of influencing public behavior, but they differ significantly in their intent, methodology, and ethical implications.

The Five Policies to Stupefy: Direct Control Through Ignorance

The "愚民五策" is a concept, often attributed to ancient Chinese political thought, describing strategies rulers might employ to maintain control by keeping the populace ignorant, docile, and subservient. While the exact historical origin and precise "five policies" can vary in interpretation, the core idea revolves around active suppression of knowledge, critical thinking, and autonomy. These methods were designed for direct, top-down control.

Common interpretations of the five policies include:

Weakening the People (弱民): Keeping the populace physically and economically weak, making them dependent on the state and less likely to challenge authority.
Stupefying the People (愚民): Suppressing education, free thought, and access to information, ensuring the people remain unaware of alternatives or their own power. This often involved promoting simplistic narratives and discouraging intellectual inquiry.
Wearying the People (疲民): Keeping people constantly busy with labor or trivial matters, leaving them no time or energy for political engagement or critical thought.
Humiliating the People (辱民): Degrading their sense of self-worth and dignity, making them feel inferior and less likely to resist.
Impoverishing the People (贫民): Maintaining economic hardship to prevent the accumulation of wealth that could fuel independence or rebellion.

The fundamental goal of these policies was to extinguish dissent and consolidate power through a systematic erosion of individual capacity and collective awareness.

Nudge Theory: Indirect Influence Through Choice Architecture

In stark contrast, Nudge Theory, popularized by Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler, emerges from behavioral economics. It proposes that by subtly altering the "choice architecture"—the environment in which decisions are made—individuals can be "nudged" towards making choices that are ostensibly in their own best interest or in line with societal goals, without restricting their freedom of choice. Nudges are indirect, often subtle, and aim to guide rather than force.

Examples of nudges include:

Defaults: Automatically enrolling people in pension schemes or organ donation, allowing them to opt-out.
Framing: Presenting information in a way that highlights positive aspects (e.g., "90% fat-free" instead of "10% fat").
Social Proof: Informing people that "most of your neighbors recycle," encouraging them to do the same.
Salience: Placing healthy food options at eye level in a cafeteria.

The stated intent of nudge theory is often benevolent: to improve public health, increase savings, promote environmental sustainability, or enhance civic participation.

The Convergent Shadow: When Nudge Becomes "愚民"

While their origins and stated intentions diverge, a critical examination reveals how nudge theory, when misused, can eerily resemble the manipulative aspects of the 愚民五策, particularly the "Stupefying the People" (愚民) aspect.

Subversion of Rationality: Both approaches, in their darker applications, bypass the individual's rational, conscious decision-making. The 愚民五策 achieves this by denying information and fostering ignorance. Nudge achieves it by exploiting cognitive biases and subconscious psychological triggers. In both cases, the individual might act without a full, reasoned understanding of why.
Asymmetry of Information and Power: Both systems inherently rely on an asymmetry of information and power. The ruler/nudge designer possesses knowledge and tools that the general populace does not, allowing them to shape the environment to their advantage.
Manipulating "Choice" vs. Eliminating Choice: The 愚民五策 aims to eliminate meaningful choice by limiting options and knowledge. Nudge theory, while theoretically preserving choice (the "opt-out" option), can make the "desired" choice so overwhelmingly easy or subtly appealing that it effectively funnels individuals without true deliberation. The distinction between a genuinely free choice and a heavily "guided" one can become blurred.
Benevolent Paternalism vs. Malicious Control: This is the crux of the ethical debate. Nudge proponents argue for "libertarian paternalism"—guiding choices while preserving freedom. However, critics argue that when applied by advertisers or self-serving politicians, this paternalism can morph into manipulation, where choices are guided not for the individual's good, but for the nudger's benefit. In such scenarios, the subtle psychological influence of nudges can indeed "stupefy" individuals into making choices they might not otherwise, without even realizing they are being influenced. This creates a populace that is effectively ignorant of the true drivers of their decisions, echoing the goal of the ancient "愚民" strategy.

Conclusion

The 愚民五策 represents an ancient, overt, and often brutal strategy of control through direct suppression and intellectual starvation. Nudge theory, on the other hand, is a modern, subtle, and generally benevolent approach to influence behavior through environmental design. However, the critical comparison reveals a cautionary tale: the very subtlety and psychological power that makes nudges effective for good can, in the wrong hands, become a sophisticated tool for manipulation, effectively achieving a modern form of 愚民—a populace guided without full awareness, making choices designed by others, and potentially undermining true individual autonomy. The distinction lies not in the existence of influence, but in its transparency, intent, and ultimate impact on individual agency.

2025年9月2日星期二

馬來西亞土著政策緣何催生華裔富豪

土著政策（Bumiputra policy），乃馬來西亞政府於一九七一年推行之新經濟政策（New Economic Policy）核心舉措也。其初衷本欲匡正土著（Bumiputra，意為「國土之子」，指馬來族及其他原住民）與非土著（尤指華族，因其在商界居主導地位）間之經濟懸殊。此策蓋為回應一九六九年種族騷亂，旨在均分國富，共襄繁榮。然四十年後，此政策雖立意良善，卻意外造就了一批華裔富豪。

扶助弱勢之意外後果

土著政策旨在提升土著在企業之持股比例，增加其高等教育之入學機會，並擴展其在專業領域之代表性。具體措施包括大學入學配額、專屬商業執照及政府合約之保留。此策雖在一定程度上催生了土著中產及上流階級，卻也對華裔商界產生了意想不到之影響。

此政策之框架，常迫使華裔企業欲承攬政府高利潤合約或取得商業執照，必與土著個人或實體結成夥伴。此類合作，人稱「阿里-巴巴」模式（Ali-Baba arrangement），其名取自一華裔企業家「阿里」與一土著掛名者「巴巴」，在當時極為常見。此模式下，土著夥伴僅為名義上之所有人，藉其特權地位獲取商機；華裔夥伴則提供資金、技術與管理。此種體系使許多華裔企業得以規避政策限制，進而擴大發展。土著夥伴多半僅收取費用或分紅，不涉入實際營運。此舉雖悖離政策初衷，卻鞏固了既有華裔集團之地位，並為其開啟了新的成長途徑。

此外，政策側重於國家主導之經濟發展，以及執照與合約之分配，遂滋生貪腐與尋租之風。此環境使所有族群中之政商關係者皆獲益匪淺，華裔亦然。彼輩與執政黨或政府要員有密切關係之華裔商人，得以遊刃有餘於政策之繁複，並取得競爭優勢。此更使得財富與權力集中於少數華裔企業家手中，形成一「裙帶資本家」階級。

此政策亦促成一種「經濟外溢」現象。許多富裕華裔家族，因覺土著政策下其長遠經濟前景難測，遂開始將資本轉投海外。此現象，人稱「人才流失」與「資本外逃」，意味著政策本欲在國內重新分配財富，卻反而將一些最具活力與財力的非土著個人與企業推向海外尋求發展。此不僅鞏固了留守者之財富，亦對馬來西亞經濟造成了長遠影響。

總而言之，土著政策雖旨在賦予馬來族群權力，然其複雜之實施與意外之結果，反使一群華裔企業家得以適應並繁榮，有時甚至透過利用政策本身之漏洞而獲利。因此，這個本欲減少族群間財富差距之政策，竟反向催生了馬來西亞一個嶄新、人脈廣闊且富裕之華裔精英階層。

How Malaysia's Bumiputra Policy Led to the Rise of a Wealthy Chinese Elite

The Bumiputra policy, enacted in 1971 as part of the New Economic Policy (NEP), was a landmark affirmative action program in Malaysia. Its primary goal was to address the economic disparities that existed between the Bumiputra (literally "sons of the soil," a term for ethnic Malays and other indigenous peoples) and non-Bumiputra, particularly the Chinese, who dominated the commercial sector. The policy was a response to the 1969 race riots and aimed to create a more equitable distribution of wealth and opportunities. Over four decades, however, this policy, despite its intentions, inadvertently fostered the growth of a wealthy Chinese elite.

Unintended Consequences of Affirmative Action

The Bumiputra policy aimed to increase Bumiputra ownership of the corporate sector, enhance their participation in higher education, and elevate their representation in the professions. It included measures such as quotas for university admissions, reserved business licenses, and government contracts. While these policies did, to a degree, create a nascent Bumiputra middle and upper class, they also had a significant and unanticipated effect on the Chinese business community.

The policy's structure often created a need for Chinese-owned firms to partner with Bumiputra individuals or entities to secure lucrative government contracts or business licenses. These partnerships, known as "Ali-Baba" arrangements (referencing a Chinese entrepreneur 'Ali' and a Bumiputra front 'Baba'), were common.In these arrangements, the Bumiputra partner would act as a nominal owner, leveraging their privileged status to gain access to opportunities, while the Chinese partner would provide the capital, expertise, and management. This system allowed many Chinese businesses to circumvent the restrictions of the policy, enabling them to expand and thrive. The Bumiputra partner, in many cases, would receive a fee or a share of the profits without being actively involved in the business operations. This practice, while subverting the policy's intent, solidified the position of existing Chinese conglomerates and provided a new avenue for growth.

Furthermore, the policy's emphasis on state-led economic development and the allocation of licenses and contracts often created an environment ripe for corruption and rent-seeking. This environment disproportionately benefited politically connected individuals from all ethnic groups, including the Chinese. Those Chinese businesspeople who had ties to the ruling political parties or key government officials were able to navigate the policy's complexities and secure a competitive advantage. This further concentrated wealth and power within a select group of Chinese entrepreneurs, a class of "crony capitalists."

The policy also encouraged a form of economic leakage. Many wealthy Chinese families, feeling that their long-term economic prospects were precarious under the Bumiputra policy, began to invest their capital overseas. This phenomenon, often referred to as a brain drain and capital flight, meant that while the policy was intended to redistribute wealth domestically, it instead pushed some of the most dynamic and wealthy non-Bumiputra individuals and firms to seek opportunities abroad, further entrenching the wealth of those who stayed and adapted to the policy's framework. This flight of talent and capital had long-term implications for the Malaysian economy.

Ultimately, while the Bumiputra policy aimed to empower the Malay majority, its complex implementation and unintended consequences allowed a select group of Chinese entrepreneurs to adapt and prosper, sometimes through partnerships that exploited the policy itself. Thus, the very policy designed to reduce ethnic wealth disparities paradoxically contributed to the rise of a new, well-connected, and affluent Chinese elite in Malaysia.

2025年8月31日星期日

論傭婦之罰

論傭婦之罰

聞有一事，足以驚心。星洲有一傭婦，年五十有三，勤勉四載。其職專一，恪盡其責。然每至閒暇之日，則為人清掃餘室，以求微利，月得三百七十五金。此舉，非為偷懶，亦非奪主之利，僅欲資其生計耳。

不意國法竟謂之罪，處以罰金一萬三千金。此金之數，可抵其兼業三十五月之資，或其正業五六月之俸也。彼婦數十年勞作，素無過犯，今為謀生之餘計，反遭重罰。

然觀其主家，私雇之罪，罰金僅七千，不及其傭婦之半。一人欲求自給，罰重；一人欲得廉役，罰輕。此理何在？蓋國法之意，昭然若揭：安汝之分，守汝之途，勿懷圖進之心。

或曰：此婦無兼職之證。此言誠然。然國法嚴控，使人不得自謀，僅能困於一主。此非以國法護人，乃以國法縛人也。夫國之引傭，以其廉價，今又禁其自營，是謂何哉？譬若掘一淺池，勸人游泳，而又罰溺者之罪，豈不謬哉？

有司又曰：此罰，已謂之仁。夫取其數年之餘資，斷其數月之全俸，謂之為仁，吾未之聞也。此傭婦，為人掃除四年，主家稱善，兩方相宜，本無損害。然國法以其不得專控為由，遽施重罰，其所害之者，非人也，乃其自設之法度也。

天下萬事，皆如賭局，莊家恆勝。爾之閒暇，非爾所有；爾之光陰，非爾所專。此乃新加坡之法也。勞作勤苦，本為美德，然對異鄉傭工而言，則為罪過耳。

A comment on the maid fine

A comment on the maid fine

You know, you see all sorts of things in the paper these days. But every once in a while, something just hits you. Like this story about the maid in Singapore. Now, you hear about a lot of things. A guy steals a loaf of bread, he goes to jail. Someone robs a bank, he goes to jail. But this? This is something else entirely.

Here's a woman. A maid. She's 53 years old, been at it for decades. She's got her main job, she's working, she's doing what she's supposed to do. She's on her rest days, her days off, the days you're supposed to put your feet up and maybe watch a little television. But she doesn't. She goes and cleans a few houses for a few hours, just trying to make a little extra money. Coffee money, as the fellow who wrote this put it.

And for that, for trying to make a little extra money on her own time, they fine her $13,000. Thirteen thousand dollars. That's a lot of money. The person she worked for, the one who hired her illegally, they got a fine too. Seven thousand dollars. The person who paid her for her work, they got fined less than she did. It's like fining the person who took the job more than the person who offered it. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it?

And the government says it's about "protecting workers." Protecting them from what? From working? From making a little extra cash on their day off? It's like they're saying, "Look, we've designed a system for you. A system where you work for one person, for a certain amount of money, and you don't even think about stepping outside that line. We'll decide how you spend your time, even your own time." It's a funny kind of protection, isn't it? 🤷‍♂️

They talk about how this woman didn't have a valid work pass for part-time work. And I suppose that's true. The law's the law. But sometimes, you have to look at the law and ask yourself, "Does this make any sense?" We bring in foreign workers because, as they say, "Singaporeans don't want these jobs." We pay them, and then we make it so they can't even try to earn a little more. You see all these commercials on television about the hardworking spirit, and the value of a good day's work. They praise it, they celebrate it. As long as it's the right kind of work, I guess. As long as it's within the system.

This woman worked for four years for this one person. Four years. Both of them were happy with the arrangement. There was no exploitation, no one was complaining. The only person complaining was the system itself. The prosecutor even called the fine "quite kind." Kind? Taking 35 months of a person's side income? Taking five to seven months of their full-time salary? It's not a lot of money for some people, but it's everything for others.

And what's the message here? The message seems to be, "Know your place. Don't try to get ahead. Don't even think about improving your situation." It's a rigged game, they say. And I suppose it is. But when you look at it, it makes you wonder what the point of the game is in the first place. You work hard, you follow the rules, and then you get punished for working too hard. It just doesn't add up. It really doesn't.

訂閱：文章 (Atom)

2025年9月15日 星期一