等香港這個死結解開，自然就會開打。象徵式的打，打出牙齒印(例如南海無人島被轟)之後就會「絕交」。不同體系的經濟系統互相交流到最後雙方都會崩潰。All for one和one for all的市場平衡點根本就不同。
tag : 心理歷史學
tag : covid-19
As a hiker who occasionally passes through this public-housing area, I couldn't help noticing how some of the main indoor passages were badly ventilated. These spaces were meant to be used by the elderly and are equipped with escalators for example, to tackle with the hilly presentation of the settlement.
Although these air-conditioning systems should have some disinfecting power, the low flow rate would make any infected passerby a potent source of infection, especially many would stand and chat or take a rest in such spaces.
Edit at 15/7: Recent study by HKU:
Low airflow (<1L/s/person) at 1.5m apart is the same as zero distance contact
tag : COVID-19
Please allow me to address you like this. As a fellow scientist, I would like to inform you why your precious President Trump is telling his people things which are not really scientifically valid.
Merchants have a habit of throwing away suppliers and customers they consider not profitable from, and that is to tell them things that would make them suffer a loss, or to provide non-prime services and goods to make sure they are not coming back.
If they are running a restaurant, they would give these undesirable customers a bad place to sit in, worse food and less service. If it is a supplier, they would give them investment tips that would make they broke (in worst scenario), for example.
US is swarmed by a migrant and insufficiently competitive population the government can no longer provide for adequately. If equality and fair competition is the basis of the US economy, Trump would definitely make use of the COVID-19 to "shave these people off".
Any wise man would trust a healthcare professional more than a merchant in the case of surviving a pandemic. US has freedom of speech so medical professionals are to be trusted compared to merchants in such topics.
For the US, there are just too many people who don't believe in science and the professionals. These people are UNDERMINING the economy in the long run, and forging grounds for foreign control based on conspiracies and biased information. If these people can be given a hard lesson, this is the only chance.
COVID-19 is not really a lethal weapon, and the US is large enough for people to spread out, and so the epidemic will not simultaneously boom in all cities. Next time, the culprit might be much more powerful and it would be too late, since those people who don't trust the authority will still not obey the hygiene rules nor take any vaccine. This is now the chance to educate people what NOT to trust. Having some elderly and sick people die in batches will also certainly improve the budget in the long run.
I understand that this goes WAY BEYOND what a scientist can do. It is exactly because Trump has the perfect excuse of saying scientifically wrong things, and the cold gut of a great(in the aspect of making profit) merchant, he is now doing what only he can do -- ordering unwise people to follow stupid instructions.
Please teach the people who to trust next time after the pandemic is over, and let the US people learn their hard lesson now. If they are given the freedom of speech, they should also learn how to be wise and what to trust. It is lucky that COVID-19 is not really lethal for most. All those painful losses of lives will prove to be worthy if people learn the lesson well. There are just SO many people who have lost their trust in science over the years where companies conducted biased researches and undermine public trust.
People did not suddenly lose trust in science. US is never a part of heaven, and what you are seeing is not only the fruit of Trump's "misconduct".
Democracy also entails the responsibility to make wise decisions, thus be educated on scientific issues (even if knowing them won't make you earn more money) and take responsibility oneself for trusting the wrong person. Democracy is never meant to be a cheap game of "follow the great-looking and easy-going leader" nor an easy solution for hard problems.
Hopefully, the US' pandemic tragedy will teach all the people in the world a hard lesson on freedom of speech, democracy and science.
A HK resident who have been reading the US news
tag : 心理歷史學
Meanwhile, COVID-19 is now becoming more and more ready to be air-borne. Soon it will make into the news (I read the academic papers first-handed so I am often weeks quicker than the news) though I wonder how many would dare to make an honest report (edit: turns out to be 200+) to the as-usual-the-last-to-know WHO. Disasters brought by extreme weather will prove controlling the pandemic more and more difficult as people run around for their lives while more and more resources become increasingly limited, in addition to the resulting dirty mess which is an established ground for another epidemic.
This is alarming since cities are going to be unsafe when things go really wrong. How can you feed a large number of people when more and more of them are sick and contagious? The COVID-19 has proven to be more infectious in the metropolitan setting (not surprising, huh).
When the supply chain goes down and won't be recovering anytime soon, how are the city dwellers going to grow enough vegetables (which cannot be stored like the grains) in their home to stay healthy? The epidemic won't last very long compared to how long, say, rice or meat, can be stored but certainly much longer than how long fresh vegetables can be kept with the essential nutritional elements.
Hong Kong, with a population of nearly 8 million, will not get itself out of such contingency unless 3 million of us leave and disperse around the world. Dying together solves none of our problems and are only creating sound reasons for international military involvement, which would easily result in WWIII. I advise those capable of surviving elsewhere leave in an orderly manner at their first chance.
I am NOT joking or being sarcastic. If people from a developed region die in hordes without committing any substantial violence, this is the greatest breach of any common sense version of national security.
There are just too many things that is above politics when it comes to survival tactics during catastrophe.
I will repeat: extreme weather doesn't discriminate.
tag : Survival
This is good news for the governments -- cities should be down-sized if they are not viable. What is better than being able to avoid making the hard decision and just let the virus do its job?
Also, since the anitbodies will only last for several months, only critical personnel such as the medics will be given the vaccine, and the general public would have to rely on the active actions of the immune system -- those who have a good life will stay immuned and those who are not will be killed after repeated infections.
The governments that have had their hands full of problems would be very happy to see those who are living a hard life dead sooner -- unhappy citizens are harder to govern and require much more government resources to please.
What you will not know is that every country in the world, under every political system, the government will come to the same conclusion and that is to let the soon-to-be-airborne version of COVID-19 run free.
Yes I would call it COVID-20, the virus that is secretly let to run free (but what other choices do you have? If it is airborne then masks are not really effective).
tag : 心理歷史學
I believe it to be a failed propaganda to drive people's attention away from the coming National Security Law, and to distribute ideas that would divide people up. I have been told to watch videos where the speaker used the "collapsing dam" to lure viewers to listen to his ranting of how victims are to be blamed and an OOT lecture on the negative parts of human nature which is taught in "Introduction to Psychology", which I guess only 10% of the population has taken (no I am not going to give the video more views so no links will be given). The end result is that people would point their fingers at the victims and also make the privileged people say ugly things and think only about themselves when the crowd is at risk -- this is war-making 101.
No you are not going to trick me and I am writing this article as a warning.
Yes someone is DEFINITELY trying to wage antagonism within HK, and within China.
If lots of people reply "hell ya die you Chinese" then the CCP would say "look these people are totally worthy of being subjugated". If people stay calm and united, this would be our chance to prove to the world that China is over-reacting and totally in the wrong direction because they just don't understand how to deal with angry educated youth and a family & career-oriented population which is concerned over how the government wasted a lot of resources on the CCP's order rather than supporting local productivity.
p.s. Why would a dam collapse suddenly if water is allowed to flow through? The dams have been there holding water for quite some time already. I would worry over major earthquakes rather than extra water flow, coz the former is definitely less predictable.
As everyone can see the height with which both sets of the dots spread, it is not VERY fair to use linear regression to conclude -- years ago a research says boys are better at science and maths than girls with similar data distribution, where variation is bigger than the difference between the groups. Although the validity of the claim was criticized, damage was done.
It would have been much more honest if the two sets of data were plotted with red and green to show the widespread overlapping, instead of pale blue and pale violet(?).
When there are more resources (aka high GDP per person), a country can act with more options when given against a challenge, and democracy is often needed to sort out the differences in people's opinion. However, it is a matter of choice what system to use. The graph clearly shows the huge difference in outcomes for rich and poor countries under the threat of different epidemics.
However, it should be noted that since the TYPES of diseases that break out in different living conditions will be different, comparison is not really fair too.
Also, 95% confidence is considered weak in the hard sciences... my guess is that with a 99.5% confidence, there will be no significant difference but since epidemics are not THAT often, insufficient data points justify the lower confidence level used,
The last thing I would like to comment on is the theory of "poor country does not see benefits by adopting democratic system in face of epidemics). To my knowledge the article doesn't address this issue (though I don't have a subscription so I cannot be sure, I inferred this from the discussion).
According to this graph, scientifically significant differences in the death rate start at around $3K-4K GDP per person at purchasing-power parity at 2020, and disappear at around $30K-40K... I assume all these data be in USD. If epidemics represent the sort of typical case where a government and its people need to make quick decisions and powerful actions to overcome the challenge, this research actually hints at "a narrow window" during which people can clearly decide that democracy is better,
If the system of a country can only be changed drastically without conflict when 99% of the people give consent to (in HK, 1% of dissent already means nearly 80K people in a single city, enough to start a large scale "riot"), Hong Kong has definitely "passed" the point where consensus stemmed from objectivity can be attained -- our PPP in 2018 is well over 60K.
Well, strange that my conclusion and the Economist's conclusion(pro-democratic) is different.
If you ask me to resolve the political dissent in Hong Kong, I would suggest people to acknowledge the fact that supporters of democracy would generally have an income, when changed to PPP, falling between 3K to 30K USD, while the average GDP PPP in HK be something around (at least) double of that.
Yes, the chasm that has widened in Hong Kong over the years smells like it is more than about "political" dissent or delusions that can be "brainwashed" away. My suggestion would be dividing the people into two systems -- the poorer ones might have the democracy they deserve, while the richest should just submit themselves to something else -- yes it is still one country two systems, just that the rich ones should bow down to another power, which is generally already so in the first place.
Scientific evidence sugggests the poorer people in Hong Kong would benefit from a truly democratic government. So what would the rich and powerful say about this? Support the poor (PPP <35K) to leave China since CCP will not allow this choice? Like how Denmark supported the immigrants who did not successfully become a productive member of the Danish society to get back to their origin country by giving them a bunch of cash?
p.s. Since China still has more than 600 million still earning 3K PPP or less per year, this research actually supports that China is not ready for democracy yet.
p.s.s. I have always enjoyed seeing different things from the same research than the paper's author claims.
tag : 心理歷史學