https://archive.is/D2WuK
这是一篇网友的po文，不是报道，不是公文，不是官方渠道，不是高知专家。观点很粗糙，想法不严谨。但有用、有力、有效。
「假作真时真亦假,真作假时假亦真」
#news
这是一篇网友的po文，不是报道，不是公文，不是官方渠道，不是高知专家。观点很粗糙，想法不严谨。但有用、有力、有效。
「假作真时真亦假,真作假时假亦真」
#news
archive.is
刚才才知道广州已经被列为疫区了，然而我们真的不...
archived 17 Apr 2020 03:22:03 UTC
Dr-Li-virus_Corona_ENG.pdf
2.9 MB
#resource #download
https://freebooks.undercats.media/corona
给孩子的书：大家都在努力，还有很多未知，待在家里好好洗手。
（真实事迹和要传达的意思之间的不协调总还是看着略略有点别扭，但真实事迹确实有点太复杂了，孩子估计听不懂吧）
https://freebooks.undercats.media/corona
给孩子的书：大家都在努力，还有很多未知，待在家里好好洗手。
（真实事迹和要传达的意思之间的不协调总还是看着略略有点别扭，但真实事迹确实有点太复杂了，孩子估计听不懂吧）
「等羞耻根深蒂固并改变了大脑之后，最轻微的一句话也能激发毁灭性的防卫战。对大多数人来说，在或称上被挤了一下，于争执中损失一点小钱，被经过的路人嘲笑一句，或是被别的四季超车并比了一个粗鲁的手势，不过是一点小烦恼而已……你会迅速恢复到正常状态。但一个过久沉浸在羞耻中的人则没有处理耻辱的缓冲区。最细微的一个表情、音调或手势也能被理解为人身攻击，并需要以饿虎扑食般的手段解决。」
——《赞扬与责备》
——《赞扬与责备》
https://youtu.be/ATSUF0DiztY
CGTN has dedicated half an hour in the show to do some damage control on the recent eviction of Africans in Guangzhou.
#news
CGTN has dedicated half an hour in the show to do some damage control on the recent eviction of Africans in Guangzhou.
#news
YouTube
What's the latest for Africans in Guangzhou?
What happened to those Africans in Guangzhou, a metropolis in southern China? That has aroused much attention from African leaders and Chinese officials. Ami...
#tool #resource
(曾经以及现在)微信公众号文章转 RSS 的方法
https://www.zmonster.me/2020/04/17/wechat-articles-rss-solution.html
(曾经以及现在)微信公众号文章转 RSS 的方法
https://www.zmonster.me/2020/04/17/wechat-articles-rss-solution.html
女性的境遇之复杂，那些作者们可能自己都没有意识到，他们自己写下了很多无意识中认同或反抗的东西，尤其是对难以察觉的、内化于身体的权力结构的书写，真就如周琰所说，亚文化是主流的镜面。
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/x73ftTgKK5QrD5XOYR90WA
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/x73ftTgKK5QrD5XOYR90WA
Weixin Official Accounts Platform
言情耽美类网络小说，女性的无意识书写
我最近和泽聊起了我大学沉迷耽美小说的事儿，那已经是七八年前了。我也回想起了很多大学时期看的网络言情小说。
【推薦】關於中國女權運動的歷史，推薦文章：米米亞娜：中国青年女权运动简史：https://matters.news/@Nikko/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E9%9D%92%E5%B9%B4%E5%A5%B3%E6%9D%83%E8%BF%90%E5%8A%A8%E7%AE%80%E5%8F%B2-%E4%B8%8A%E9%83%A82012-2013-zdpuB2bxo3PuMTGWSwQxVQSGv71AXsXwhrTkwSLHZF4WmdkXM
Matters
中国青年女权运动简史（上部2012-2013） - 米米亚娜 (@Nikko)
前言：中国青年女权行动派的诞生自2012年起，中国社会涌现出了一批年轻的女权主义行动者，被称为“青年女权行动派”。她们大多数都曾经是普通高校的学生，多采用行为艺术的方式在公共场合公开地表达性别平等的诉求；她们会主动介入时事热点事件，擅长吸引媒体的关注，同时积极问责政府机构和企业，...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEWAsy_0RvE
I am just wondering: if this gentleman takes off his monk clothes and that zazen posture, if he doesn't use the word Shaolin, would this talk give you the same impression? or would it just become simple cliche?
I am just wondering: if this gentleman takes off his monk clothes and that zazen posture, if he doesn't use the word Shaolin, would this talk give you the same impression? or would it just become simple cliche?
YouTube
Generation of Ideas through spiritual practices | Walter Gjergja | TEDxKazan
Walter Gjergja talks about the ancient ideas from the Shaolin culture to enhance everyday's abilities to generate new and helpful ideas of highest quality today.
Walter Gjergja (Shi Xing Mi) - Shaolin secular monk, master, entrepreneur, trainer, adviser…
Walter Gjergja (Shi Xing Mi) - Shaolin secular monk, master, entrepreneur, trainer, adviser…
https://blog.appsignal.com/2020/04/09/ride-down-the-javascript-dependency-hell.html
作为一个everything on the Web 的支持者，javascript的依赖地狱真的是一个让人头大的问题。
作为一个everything on the Web 的支持者，javascript的依赖地狱真的是一个让人头大的问题。
Appsignal
Ride Down Into JavaScript Dependency Hell | AppSignal Blog
Find out how a single JS package can come with 19k dependencies.
#news
以「一键下单」知名的亚马逊开始改造其网站，希望能让消费者减少购买。
https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-retools-with-unusual-goal-get-shoppers-to-buy-less-amid-coronavirus-pandemic-11587034800?mod=tech_lead_pos1
以「一键下单」知名的亚马逊开始改造其网站，希望能让消费者减少购买。
https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-retools-with-unusual-goal-get-shoppers-to-buy-less-amid-coronavirus-pandemic-11587034800?mod=tech_lead_pos1
WSJ
WSJ News Exclusive | Amazon Retools With Unusual Goal: Get Shoppers to Buy Less Amid Coronavirus Pandemic
Amazon is retooling its website to do the opposite of what made it one of the world’s most dominant companies: Sell fewer items.
#resource #tool
https://ssd.eff.org/en/module/deep-dive-end-end-encryption-how-do-public-key-encryption-systems-work
https://ssd.eff.org/en/module/deep-dive-end-end-encryption-how-do-public-key-encryption-systems-work
Surveillance Self-Defense
A Deep Dive on End-to-End Encryption: How Do Public Key Encryption Systems Work?
If used correctly, end-to-end encryption can help protect the contents of your messages, text, and even files from being understood by anyone except their intended recipients. It can also be used to
#archive #opinion
The Future of the American Idea
November 2007
Atlantic Monthly
by David Foster Wallace
Are some things still worth dying for? Is the American idea* one such thing? Are you up for a thought experiment? What if we chose to regard the 2,973 innocents killed in the atrocities of 9/11 not as victims but as democratic martyrs, “sacrifices on the altar of freedom”?* In other words, what if we decided that a certain baseline vulnerability to terrorism is part of the price of the American idea? And, thus, that ours is a generation of Americans called to make great sacrifices in order to preserve our democratic way of life—sacrifices not just of our soldiers and money but of our personal safety and comfort?
In still other words, what if we chose to accept the fact that every few years, despite all reasonable precautions, some hundreds or thousands of us may die in the sort of ghastly terrorist attack that a democratic republic cannot 100-percent protect itself from without subverting the very principles that make it worth protecting?
Is this thought experiment monstrous? Would it be monstrous to refer to the 40,000-plus domestic highway deaths we accept each year because the mobility and autonomy of the car are evidently worth that high price? Is monstrousness why no serious public figure now will speak of the delusory trade-off of liberty for safety that Ben Franklin warned about more than 200 years ago? What exactly has changed between Franklin’s time and ours? Why now can we not have a serious national conversation about sacrifice, the inevitability of sacrifice—either of (a) some portion of safety or (b) some portion of the rights and protections that make the American idea so incalculably precious?
In the absence of such a conversation, can we trust our elected leaders to value and protect the American idea as they act to secure the homeland? What are the effects on the American idea of Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, Patriot Acts I and II, warrantless surveillance, Executive Order 13233, corporate contractors performing military functions, the Military Commissions Act, NSPD 51, etc., etc.? Assume for a moment that some of these measures really have helped make our persons and property safer—are they worth it? Where and when was the public debate on whether they’re worth it? Was there no such debate because we’re not capable of having or demanding one? Why not? Have we actually become so selfish and scared that we don’t even want to consider whether some things trump safety? What kind of future does that augur?
FOOTNOTES:
1. Given the strict Gramm-Rudmanewque space limit here, let’s just please all agree that we generally know what this term connotes—an open society, consent of the governed, enumerated powers, Federalist 10, pluralism, due process, transparency … the whole democratic roil.
2. (This phrase is Lincoln’s, more or less)
The Future of the American Idea
November 2007
Atlantic Monthly
by David Foster Wallace
Are some things still worth dying for? Is the American idea* one such thing? Are you up for a thought experiment? What if we chose to regard the 2,973 innocents killed in the atrocities of 9/11 not as victims but as democratic martyrs, “sacrifices on the altar of freedom”?* In other words, what if we decided that a certain baseline vulnerability to terrorism is part of the price of the American idea? And, thus, that ours is a generation of Americans called to make great sacrifices in order to preserve our democratic way of life—sacrifices not just of our soldiers and money but of our personal safety and comfort?
In still other words, what if we chose to accept the fact that every few years, despite all reasonable precautions, some hundreds or thousands of us may die in the sort of ghastly terrorist attack that a democratic republic cannot 100-percent protect itself from without subverting the very principles that make it worth protecting?
Is this thought experiment monstrous? Would it be monstrous to refer to the 40,000-plus domestic highway deaths we accept each year because the mobility and autonomy of the car are evidently worth that high price? Is monstrousness why no serious public figure now will speak of the delusory trade-off of liberty for safety that Ben Franklin warned about more than 200 years ago? What exactly has changed between Franklin’s time and ours? Why now can we not have a serious national conversation about sacrifice, the inevitability of sacrifice—either of (a) some portion of safety or (b) some portion of the rights and protections that make the American idea so incalculably precious?
In the absence of such a conversation, can we trust our elected leaders to value and protect the American idea as they act to secure the homeland? What are the effects on the American idea of Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, Patriot Acts I and II, warrantless surveillance, Executive Order 13233, corporate contractors performing military functions, the Military Commissions Act, NSPD 51, etc., etc.? Assume for a moment that some of these measures really have helped make our persons and property safer—are they worth it? Where and when was the public debate on whether they’re worth it? Was there no such debate because we’re not capable of having or demanding one? Why not? Have we actually become so selfish and scared that we don’t even want to consider whether some things trump safety? What kind of future does that augur?
FOOTNOTES:
1. Given the strict Gramm-Rudmanewque space limit here, let’s just please all agree that we generally know what this term connotes—an open society, consent of the governed, enumerated powers, Federalist 10, pluralism, due process, transparency … the whole democratic roil.
2. (This phrase is Lincoln’s, more or less)