What is Taiwan’s plan B? It is starting to hedge against the risk that America abandons it Oct 23rd 2025|Taipei|6 min read Officials in Taiwan were quietly optimistic when Donald Trump was re-elected. Among his advisers were several diehard China hawks determined that America stand by its vow to help Taiwan defend itself against any attack from the Chinese mainland. Taiwanese diplomats and military commanders also recalled Mr Trump’s first term, when he increased arms sales and official contacts with the island. Besides, Taiwan has a “silicon shield”: it is home to the world’s biggest producer of the semiconductors that are used by America’s AI industry. Less than a year later, Taiwan is confronting one of its deepest fears: what happens if America abandons it? Officially, American policy has not changed. But Mr Trump is preoccupied with negotiating a trade deal with China that could also encompass Taiwan. He hinted at that in May by suggesting that such a deal would be “great for unification and peace”. Although American officials later walked that back, Mr Trump jangled nerves in Taiwan again on October 19th by saying that he expected to discuss the island in a planned meeting with his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, in South Korea at the end of October. And these are not the only shocks. Mr Trump has hit Taiwan with steeper trade tariffs than those he has imposed on Japan and South Korea; demanded that the island increase defence spending to 10% of GDP (from 2.5% last year); and asked TSMC, its chipmaking giant, to move much of its production to America. Other troubling signs include his putting off planned stopovers in America by Taiwan’s president, Lai Ching-te, and failing to approve new arms sales to the island. Meanwhile, most of the China hawks have been purged from his administration, giving way to isolationist officials who want to secure the American homeland at all cost. And Chinese officials have been pressing long-standing demands for America to water down its commitment to Taiwan, possibly by explicitly opposing any move to declare formal independence. Taiwan’s government says its relationship with America remains strong. In recent weeks, however, Taiwanese officials have been scrambling to adjust their public messaging, private diplomacy, economic policy and defence planning in response to these developments. Their primary aim is to convince Mr Trump to sustain America’s commitment to Taiwan. But they are also starting to hedge against the risk that he makes a strategic “grand bargain” with Mr Xi at the island’s expense. The shift was evident in President Lai’s national-day address on October 10th. His remarks on mainland China were notably restrained. Since Mr Lai took office in 2024 he has made a series of public comments that have angered China and unnerved some American officials, including in last year’s national-day address. China has staged large military exercises in response, accusing Mr Lai of separatism and warning that he was “playing with fire”. This time, Mr Lai trod gingerly, apparently to avoid disrupting Mr Trump’s trade talks. Another contrast with last year’s address was Mr Lai’s pledge to boost defence spending. He vowed to increase it to more than 3% of GDP in 2026 and to 5% by 2030. He also unveiled plans to build an air-defence system called “T-Dome” over Taiwan. And he pledged to supplement regular defence spending with a “special defence budget” later this year. Although that may struggle to get through parliament, officials say it could be worth as much as $33bn and that a lot of it could be spent on American weapons. Those plans are part of an effort to convince Mr Trump that Taiwan is investing in its own defence. And the way they were presented reflects a recognition that previous lobbying in America was too geared towards China hawks whose influence is fading. Even the branding of “T-Dome” was meant to get Mr Trump’s attention by encouraging comparisons to his “Golden Dome” missile-defence system. Mr Lai also took the unusual step of appearing on a popular American right-wing radio show on October 7th. Not only did he tout his defence plans: he said Mr Trump should win a Nobel peace prize if he got Mr Xi to abandon the use of force against Taiwan. Shortly afterwards, Mr Lai met Matt Schlapp, a right-wing American political activist (Taiwan’s top military think-tank had invited him to visit Taipei). While this charm offensive plays out, Mr Lai has been quietly** boosting defence ties with partners other than America**. In his national-day address he said his government would “collaborate with the military industries of advanced nations”. Taiwanese officials are reluctant to be more specific, citing the risk that China penalises countries involved. But the focus is on drones and such “asymmetric” capabilities. And the outreach appears to have focused on Europe of late, as countries there increase their own defence spending in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. European governments and companies were somewhat better represented than usual at Taiwan’s biggest defence show in September. Germany’s trade office in Taipei took part for the first time; it set up a pavilion showcasing four German firms. Airbus turned up, too; it showed off a tactical aerial drone. In Poland that same month, a Taiwanese defence-industry delegation agreed with Polish and Ukrainian counterparts to co-operate in manufacturing aerial drones. European and other non-American partners are unlikely to provide Taiwan with big-ticket weapons, given the risk of Chinese recriminations. But there is scope for discreet co-operation between defence companies. Taiwan is an alternative supplier of high-tech electronic components for countries trying to become less reliant on China, including in the defence sector, says Lai Chun-kuei of the Taiwanese government’s Research Institute for Democracy, Society and Emerging Technology. In exchange, Taiwan wants technology and expertise to help build its own capabilities. Some critics say all this is too little, too late. Even if Mr Trump and his supporters approve of Taiwan’s defence spending, they have deeper differences with the island’s ruling Democratic Progressive Party on issues such as gender, green energy and the death penalty, says Alexander Huang, a former envoy in Washington for the main opposition party, the Kuomintang (KMT). Mr Lai’s defence-spending plans could also face resistance between now and the island’s next presidential election in 2028. Cheng Li-wun, who was chosen as the KMT’s new leader on October 18th, is opposed to boosting the defence budget. Certainly none of these plans is sufficient to compensate should American security guarantees vanish. The hope in Taiwan, though, is not that it can find a substitute for America. It is that it can bolster its own capabilities just enough to keep Mr Xi convinced that the costs of an invasion, even if successful, outweigh the benefits. Without America, that may not be achievable. But there is no other good plan B. ■ 當美國拋棄台灣時：台灣的「B計畫」是什麼？ —— 台灣開始為「美國可能不再挺台」做準備 2025年10月23日｜台北｜約6分鐘閱讀 當川普再次當選美國總統時，台灣官員其實一開始還頗為樂觀。因為他的顧問團隊裡有幾位堅定的「反中鷹派」，主張美國應履行承諾，協助台灣抵禦來自中國大陸的攻擊。許多台灣外交與軍方人士也記得川普第一任期時，他曾增加對台軍售與官方往來。此外，台灣擁有所謂的「矽盾」—— 全世界最大半導體製造商就設在台灣，而美國的人工智慧產業仰賴這些晶片。 但不到一年，台灣便面臨最深的恐懼：如果美國真的拋棄台灣，該怎麼辦？ 表面上，美國的對台政策並未改變，但川普如今正全力推動與中國的貿易協議，而台灣問題似乎也在其中。他今年5月曾暗示，這樣的協議「有助於統一與和平」。雖然美國官員事後急忙澄清，但10月19日，川普又表示他預計月底在南韓與習近平會面時，會「討論台灣問題」，再度讓台北神經緊繃。 而這並不是唯一的警訊。川普對台灣祭出的貿易關稅比日本、南韓更高；他要求台灣將國防預算從去年的GDP 2.5%一口氣提高到10%；還要求台積電把大部分生產線搬到美國。此外，他推遲了賴清德總統原訂的美國過境行程，也遲遲未批准新的對台軍售案。 更糟的是，川普政府中的多位「挺台鷹派」已被撤換，取而代之的是一群「美國優先」的孤立主義官員，強調要不惜一切保護美國本土安全。同時，中國方面也持續施壓，要求美方在對台立場上「鬆綁」，甚至希望美國明確表態反對台灣任何形式的「法理獨立」。 儘管台灣政府對外仍強調「台美關係堅若磐石」，但近來可以明顯看出，台北正加緊調整其公開發言、外交策略、經濟政策與國防布局，以因應新局。主要目的是想說服川普維持美國對台的安全承諾，同時也要為最壞的情況——川普與習近平達成「大交易」犧牲台灣——預做準備。 這樣的轉變在賴清德10月10日的國慶演說中尤為明顯。相較去年，他談論中國的語氣顯得格外克制。自2024年上任以來，賴清德曾多次發表讓北京不滿、讓部分美國官員不安的言論，去年國慶演說後更引來中國大規模軍演，指控他是「頑固的分裂分子」。但今年，他明顯收斂，顯然是為了避免干擾川普的對中談判。 與去年相比，賴清德也在演說中宣布要大幅提升國防預算。他承諾2026年將提高至GDP的3%以上，2030年達到5%。同時，他宣布啟動名為「T-Dome」的全島防空系統計畫，並將在年底提出特別國防預算，估計規模可達330億美元，主要用於購買美國武器。 這些舉措旨在向川普展示：台灣願意自我防衛、分擔責任。甚至「T-Dome」這個名稱，也刻意呼應川普任內的「黃金圓頂」（Golden Dome）飛彈防禦系統，好讓他印象深刻。 賴清德甚至在10月7日罕見地登上美國右翼廣播節目，強調台灣的防衛努力，並稱如果川普能讓習近平放棄武力犯台，「那他值得拿諾貝爾和平獎」。之後，他還會見了美國保守派政治人物馬特・施拉普（Matt Schlapp），這是由台灣國防智庫邀請他訪台。 在積極拉攏美方的同時，賴清德也悄悄強化與其他國家的防務合作。他在國慶演說中提到，台灣將「與先進國家的軍工產業合作」。台灣官員對細節三緘其口，以免引來中國報復，但外界普遍認為重點在於無人機與「非對稱作戰」能力，最近則特別著眼於歐洲。 歐洲國家因應俄羅斯入侵烏克蘭，國防支出大幅增加，也讓台歐互動升溫。九月舉行的台灣國防展上，歐洲代表團規模明顯擴大。德國經濟辦事處首度設立展區，展示四家德國企業；空中巴士（Airbus）也到場展示戰術無人機。同月，在波蘭，台灣代表團與波蘭、烏克蘭的國防業者簽署合作協議，共同生產無人機。 雖然歐洲與其他非美國夥伴不太可能提供台灣大型武器，以免激怒北京，但雙方在軍工企業層面的低調合作仍有空間。台灣本身也能為歐洲提供高科技電子零件，幫助他們降低對中國的依賴；作為交換，台灣希望獲得技術與專業，強化自己的軍工實力。 然而，也有批評者認為這一切為時已晚。前駐美代表、現任國民黨要角黃介正指出，即使川普陣營欣賞台灣提升國防支出，他們在性別議題、綠能政策與死刑等價值觀上，與民進黨仍存在深刻分歧。新任國民黨主席鄭麗文（10月18日當選）也公開反對提高國防預算。 可以肯定的是，這些措施都不足以彌補若失去美國安全保障所造成的缺口。但台灣的希望並非要找到取代美國的選項，而是要讓中國相信：即便能攻下台灣，代價也將高到不值得。 若沒有美國的支持，這目標恐怕難以實現。 但除了這條路，台灣也沒有更好的「B計畫」。 ■ -- Hosting provided by SoundOn

United States | Build, baby, build California tries to fix its housing mess The YIMBY movement wins a big victory Oct 14th 2025|Los Angeles|4 min read ONE OF THE most contentious and consequential housing reforms in California’s history was almost sunk by a former reality-TV star. American millennials might remember Spencer Pratt as the blonde bad boy they loved to hate on “The Hills”, an MTV show that chronicled the life of hot, young Angelenos in the noughties. More recently Mr Pratt has taken to podcasting from the empty lot where his home once stood. It burned in the Palisades Fire this year. He spreads the blame around. Gavin Newsom (the governor of California) and Karen Bass (the mayor of Los Angeles) are frequent targets. Mr Pratt also gets wonky. In a recent Instagram video he told fans to call Mr Newsom’s* office to* urge him to veto a housing bill: SB 79. SB 79 rezones state land around busy public-transport stops to allow for taller residential buildings. It also slaps hefty fines on cities that try to deny such buildings a permit. It was amended more than a dozen times to appease rural lawmakers, unions and tenants-rights groups—and it still barely passed the legislature. The bill spent weeks on the governor’s desk, which gave his pro-housing allies the willies and Mr Pratt some hope. But on October 10th Mr Newsom signed the law and delivered a huge win to the ascendantYIMBY (Yes In My Backyard) movement. The passage of SB 79 and more than 40 other housing reforms this year could be a turning point for a state that is crippled by its self-inflicted(自食惡果的)housing shortage. “The cost of inaction is simply too high,” wrote Mr Newsom upon signing the bill. He is right. Housing policy is not just a topic that “abundance bros”—Democratic thinkers who say their party needs to be more growth-friendly—debate on podcasts (though they do a lot of that). Building more homes is integral to California maintaining its political heft and again becoming a place where people want to live. The median sale price of **residential properties **in California is higher than in any other state. People are moving to cheaper places, and that exodus has become a political problem for Democrats. The Golden State could lose at least three congressional seats (and electoral votes) in the next reapportionment after the 2030 census. “Democrats need to be willing to say no to NIMBYs and to city councils that are yelling at them,” Scott Wiener, the bill’s author, told The Economist earlier this year. Mr Newsom, a Democrat, was also surely aware that he would have been labelled a hypocrite had he given in to pressure to veto the bill. The governor has consistently pushed to streamline the permitting process and to build more homes. (He even invited some of those abundance bros on his own podcast.) Mr Newsom’s record in California will be subject to intense scrutiny should he run for president in 2028. If things improve on his watch, it will be harder for Republicans to paint California as a hellscape with rampant homelessness and high costs (though they will certainly try). There are still plenty of details to be worked out. Housing wonks are already finding potential loopholes in the law that will need to be fixed. But it will be phased in over several years and allows for a lot of flexibility. Cities that don’t want to build where SB 79 tells them to can propose different locations—so long as the housing gets built somewhere. Daniel Lurie, San Francisco’s moderate mayor, is using the threat of state intervention to convince local NIMBYs that his plan to increase housing density is tame by comparison. Elsewhere, the state may need to be a bully. Contrary to Mr Pratt’s prattling, neither Pacific Palisades nor Altadena, another neighbourhood razed by fire, has transport stations big enough to trigger the law. Yet Ms Bass urged Mr Newsom to veto the bill so as not to “erode local control”—while still claiming that LA is a “pro-housing city”. The lack of progress the city is making on housing is clear. LA has only approved 13% of the units it says it needs to permit by 2029. “State intervention has been really the only pathway through which we’ve been able to make real progress on this issue,” says Nithya Raman, a rare YIMBY city-council member in Los Angeles. Now state intervention is coming. ■ 美國 | 蓋吧，寶貝，蓋吧 加州嘗試修復其住房困局 「YIMBY」（我家後院也行）運動迎來重大勝利 2025年10月14日｜洛杉磯｜閱讀時間約4分鐘 加州歷史上最具爭議、卻也最具影響力的住房改革之一，差點被一位前實境節目明星給搞砸。美國千禧世代或許還記得史賓塞‧普拉特（Spencer Pratt），那位在《The Hills》（《山丘青春誌》）中被觀眾又愛又恨的金髮壞男孩。這部MTV節目記錄了2000年代初洛杉磯年輕俊男美女的生活。近年來，普拉特轉向播客創作，錄音地點正是他原本的住處——在今年的「帕利塞茲大火」（Palisades Fire）中被燒成一片空地。他將責任歸咎於許多人，其中包括加州州長蓋文‧紐森（Gavin Newsom）與洛杉磯市長凱倫‧巴斯（Karen Bass）。 普拉特偶爾也談些政策。最近他在Instagram影片中呼籲粉絲致電紐森辦公室，要求他否決一項住房法案：SB 79。 SB 79將繁忙公共交通站周邊的州有土地重新劃區，以允許興建更高的住宅建築。該法案還對那些拒發建照的城市施以重罰。為了安撫農村議員、工會與租屋者權益團體，法案在立法過程中被修改十多次，但仍僅以微弱票數通過。此法案在州長辦公桌上擱置了數週，讓支持興建住房的一方緊張不安，也讓普拉特燃起希望。然而，10月10日，紐森簽署了該法，替迅速崛起的「YIMBY」（Yes In My Backyard，「我家後院也行」）運動送上重大勝利。今年通過的SB 79及其他四十多項住房改革，可能成為這個因自我造成的住房短缺而陷入困境的州的轉捩點。紐森在簽署法案時寫道：「不作為的代價實在太高。」 他說得沒錯。住房政策不再只是所謂「豐饒派」（abundance bros「豐饒派」通常指的是2025年在美國興起的一種政治和經濟思潮，稱為**「豐饒議程」（Abundance Agenda）**。 該思潮旨在透過增加供給、推動科技創新、改革限制性政策，以解決高生活成本和經濟成長緩慢等問題。）——那些主張民主黨應更加友善於經濟成長的進步派思想家——在播客上辯論的話題而已。大量興建住宅，是加州維持政治影響力、並重新成為人們嚮往居住之地的關鍵。加州住宅的中位售價高於全美任何州。人們正搬往較便宜的地方，而這股外流潮已成為民主黨的政治難題。加州在2030年人口普查後的重新分配中，可能至少失去三個國會席次（與選舉人票）。該法案作者、州參議員史考特‧維納（Scott Wiener）今年稍早對《經濟學人》表示：「民主黨人必須敢於對那些『NIMBY』（Not In My Backyard，「別在我家後院蓋」）派，以及那些在咆哮抗議的市議會說『不』。」 身為民主黨人的紐森，也深知若屈服於否決法案的壓力，必將被批評為偽善。這位州長一貫主張簡化核准流程、加速住宅建設。（他甚至邀請過幾位「豐饒派」人士上自己的播客節目。）若他在2028年競選總統，外界必將嚴格檢視他在加州的施政成果。倘若加州情況在他任內改善，共和黨將更難再把加州描繪成充斥無家可歸者與高物價的「人間地獄」——儘管他們仍會努力這麼做。 儘管如此，仍有許多細節有待釐清。住房政策專家已在新法中發現可能需要修補的漏洞。不過，該法將在數年內分階段實施，並保留高度彈性。若城市不願在SB 79指定地點興建，仍可提議替代地點——前提是最終確實要蓋出住宅。舊金山的溫和派市長丹尼爾‧盧瑞（Daniel Lurie）正利用州政府干預的威脅，來說服地方反對者接受他相對溫和的住宅密度提升計畫。 在其他地區，州政府可能需要更強硬的手段。與普拉特的喋喋不休相反，無論是帕利塞茲還是另一個曾被大火摧毀的社區奧塔迪納（Altadena），都沒有足夠大型的交通站會被此法涵蓋。然而，巴斯市長仍敦促紐森否決該法，聲稱不應「削弱地方自治」，同時又宣稱洛杉磯是個「支持興建住房的城市」。事實卻顯示，該市的住房進展極為有限——至今僅核准了其設定到2029年目標的13%。 洛杉磯少數支持「YIMBY」的市議員妮西亞‧拉曼（Nithya Raman）表示：「州政府的介入，其實是我們唯一能在這議題上取得實質進展的途徑。」如今，這樣的介入即將正式展開。■ -- Hosting provided by SoundOn

Kim Seong Min risked everything to escape from North Korea The activist, poet and broadcaster died on September 12th, aged 63 Sep 25th 2025|5 min read He could not shake the shackle off. At the other end of it was a North Korean officer, who went with him everywhere. If Kim Seong Min as much as used the lavatory, the officer came along too. For three days they were yoked like this, hostile twins, while the train crept through northern North Korea. The punishment for his crime, leaving North Korea without permission as a captain in the army, was public execution. But he was hatching a plan. As the lavatory became ever filthier, the officer at last let him go by himself. Once in, jumping to swing on a ceiling beam, he kicked out the wood-frame window and tumbled after. The train was going at around 50 miles an hour, but he was lucky; he landed in the soft-turned soil of a sesame field. Then, his broken shackle still dangling, he ran away. It was his second escape. On his first, a well-tried route from Pyongyang to China by wading across the Yalu river, he had been picked up by the Chinese police, lightly tortured, handed to North Korean agents, tortured more and put on the train. After his jump, he was more successful. Undetected he got back to China, worked in a coal-briquette factory, managed to get counterfeit papers and three years later, in 1999, flew to South Korea as easily as any businessman. Yet his business was very different. It was to broadcast truth, by all means possible, back into his home country. His reasons for escaping from North Korea were both proximate—disciplinary trouble in his army unit, illegal letters to his uncle in China—and slower-growing. For all his boyhood and for most of his ten years of military service he was completely loyal to the Supreme Leaders, Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il: singing the songs of gratitude, cursing his country’s enemies. He never made much of a soldier, because he wanted to be a poet; a fine poet, like his father. It was rare that he even put on a uniform; assigned as he was to the arts and propaganda unit in Camp 620, he sat writing most of the time.** On marches or when training he made up poems to help the tedious stuff along.** What began to bother him more were the leaflets. On some mornings, when he left his tent, the ground would be white with them, dropped from South Korean planes. They described how much food there was in South Korea, and how high car production was. He also had a radio, illegally tinkered with, that could pick up South Korean signals. These told him one day that Kim Jong Il had been born not under a rainbow on the slopes of sacred Mount Paektu, but in a military camp in Russia’s far east. He wanted to dismiss these tales as propaganda, which of course he wrote himself. All the same, he knew that North Korea made relatively few cars, and that not only scarcity, but famine, stalked the land. In one scathing poem he talked of a man sacrificing his sister’s chastity for a handful of rice, and wondered why that rice should be cherished “above all else”. It was common to see corpses in the streets; he had once come upon a pile of 20, emaciated and writhing with maggots, outside a railway station. As for the Supreme Leader’s newly humdrum birthplace, it sounded like a lie, but could be true. A doubt was sown. The leaflets also talked a lot about “freedom”. He was not sure exactly what that meant. But if it was a place, it might be worth going to. By 2004, after five years in South Korea, he knew it was. Freedom was “our breath”. Since the South Korean government, under its short-lived “Sunshine” policy of conciliation with the hermit kingdom, had stopped proclaiming freedom northwards, he set up Free North Korea Radio (FNKR) to do the job instead. He used short-wave to reach them; his tiny staff, almost all exiles, used pseudonyms. A brave band of stringers north of the demilitarised zone interviewed ordinary North Koreans, using small digital recorders, phones with prepaid Chinese SIM cards and Chinese memory sticks. Those were transferred hand-to-hand back to Seoul. When any of his team in the North fell silent, presumably arrested or killed, he was devastated. North Koreans who dared to tune in found a station that was, in some ways, familiar: broadcasting in their own dialects, often on subjects they especially enjoyed. “Hello, my compatriots!” cried Mr Kim. Quite unfamiliar was the sound of their own countrymen (their voices electronically distorted) attacking the regime. They could also hear from exiles in Seoul about bright clothes, mains hot water and overflowing food tables, the things that had most dazzled Mr Kim. At his first debrief in 1999 he had not only been offered a Coke, a Sprite and rice wine, but a different drink for every day of the year. In the buffet, realising his new power, he took five fried eggs. The cook merely replaced them. Money for his station was a struggle. The Americans gave funding, and also helped send out his programmes, but he did not want to be seen as their puppet. Attacks on FNKR were legion, as were threats to himself. He was sent untraceable, disturbing packages containing dolls stuck with knives, or dead mice. But nothing could deter him. His countrymen had been told repeatedly that they lived in heaven on earth. He and his team told them, for one hour twice a day, 365 days a year, that on the contrary they were slaves of the dictator, trapped like frogs in a deep well. Real heaven was freedom: to dress, to practise religion, to hold contrary opinions, as you liked. Heaven was freedom of choice. Several of his poems, though, told a more nuanced story. He mourned the things he could not forget: the white forsythia at the foot of Moran Hill, the path at the edge of his village, the shyness of a sister, one of four, he had left behind. He remembered his mother in her sweat-stained apron, knitting late at night, or standing by the Taedong river in her homespun jacket. She was always smiling. **But he felt he had “gently laid a handful of dirt” on her. In South Korea, “this foreign land that is not foreign”, he kept calling for her. **Some ties were more easily cast off than others. ■ 〈金成民——用自由的聲音打破北韓沉默〉 一位真正勇敢的人——金成民。 他是一位脫北者、詩人、也是廣播主持人。 他在 2025 年 9 月 12 日離世，享年 63 歲。 但他的一生，像是一首關於自由的長詩。 金成民曾是北韓軍隊的上尉。 他的「罪行」，就是想離開北韓。 那在北韓，是會被公開處決的。 他第一次逃跑失敗，被抓回去，又被拷打。 第二次，他被鐵鍊綁在一名軍官身邊，一起搭著慢慢行駛的火車。 上廁所時，軍官也要跟著。 三天後，廁所髒得軍官受不了，終於讓他自己去。 他一進去，就跳起來，用力踢破窗戶，從火車上滾了出去。 時速大約 80 公里，但他幸運地落在鬆軟的芝麻田裡。 鐵鍊還掛在腳上，他就這樣拼命地跑。 他再次逃到中國，在煤磚工廠打工，靠假證件過活。 三年後，也就是 1999 年，他終於飛到了南韓。 但他的「新事業」，不是賺錢，而是用廣播把真相傳回北韓。 他年輕時，其實是忠於金日成與金正日的。 他會唱頌揚領導者的歌，也寫愛國詩。 但有一天，他在軍營外看到地上滿滿的傳單， 上面寫著：「南韓有很多食物，有汽車工廠。」 他起初不信，還以為那是敵人的宣傳。 直到他偷偷改裝收音機，聽到了南韓的節目。 那裡說，金正日不是在白頭山的彩虹下出生， 而是在俄羅斯遠東的一個軍營。 那一刻，他心裡的信念開始動搖。 他看到飢荒，看過街上餓死的人。 他寫詩，寫一個男人為了米飯犧牲妹妹的尊嚴。 他開始懷疑： 「如果自由是一個地方，那應該值得去一趟。」 到了南韓，他明白—— 自由就是「我們的呼吸」。 於是他創立了「自由北韓廣播電台」， 用短波把節目傳進北韓。 節目裡的聲音有時會被改音， 但聽眾聽得出，那是他們自己的語言。 「北韓的同胞們，你們好！」 節目裡，他這樣喊著。 他講南韓的生活：五彩的衣服、熱水、滿桌的食物。 這些，讓他第一次覺得自己真正活著。 資金不多，美國給了一些幫助， 但他不想被說成是美國的傀儡。 他收到過恐嚇信，甚至有人寄來插著刀的娃娃、死老鼠。 可他從未退縮。 他說：北韓人被告訴自己住在「人間天堂」， 但真正的天堂，是「選擇的自由」。 在他的詩裡，也有溫柔的一面。 他想念母親，想念村口的小路， 想念那株白色的迎春花。 他說：「我好像在母親的墳上，輕輕放下一把土。」 即使在南韓——這個「不陌生的異鄉」， 他仍然不停呼喚母親的名字。 有些枷鎖，可以掙脫。 但有些牽掛，永遠留在心裡。 è 這就是金成民的故事—— 一個用詩與廣播，讓北韓聽見自由聲音的人。 -- Hosting provided by SoundOn

Are red-light face masks worth the hype? Used properly, the right ones can help combat the signs of ageing Sep 26th 2025|3 min read HOLED UP AT home when no one else is looking, people indulge in their covert, sometimes embarrassing, self-care routines. One of the newest involves donning a mask that would make the greatest movie villains envious. Strap it around the face, switch it on and ominous coloured light starts to emanate from the eye and mouth holes. All in the name of eternal youth and vitality. Light-emitting diode (LED) face masks are all the rage. Depending on the colour you choose, manufacturers promise they will rid your face of acne, reverse skin discolouration and even fight off wrinkles. The most popular is the red-light mask, which uses red and near-infrared (NIR) light. These, designers claim, stimulate skin regeneration and reverse the signs of ageing. Such claims are more than marketing hype. Red light has the longest wavelengths in the visible spectrum, and so can safely penetrate deeper into the skin than light with shorter wavelengths. The light then stimulates colour-sensitive molecules called chromophores in subsurface skin layers. These encourage the growth of cells called fibroblasts, which are among the first to respond to injuries or damage to the skin. They are responsible for the production of two skin proteins, collagen and elastin. High amounts of collagen are important for youthful-looking skin, boosting its elasticity and firmness. Numerous experiments bear out the positive effects that red and NIR light can have on skin. A study published in 2007 in the Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology asked 76 people aged between 35 and 55 who showed visible signs of ageing to use red light on the right half of their faces, leaving the left as a control. Four weeks later, the authors concluded that the right sides of participants’ faces already looked younger. Biopsies taken from some confirmed the presence of increased collagen. Shoshana Marmon, director of dermatological research at New York Medical College, notes that small studies have indeed shown benefits for acne, skin texture and wrinkles. But those benefits are modest. For best results, she recommends using red-light masks at least three times a week for 8-12 weeks, alongside moisturisers, a broad-spectrum sunscreen and a retinoid (a class of products derived from vitamin A). “You can add the light mask on top of those basics,” says Dr Marmon, “but it shouldn’t replace them.” Anti-ageing is the tip of the iceberg. Tests conducted in the 1990s by researchers at NASA—first in plants, then on rats and human tissue—found that light from LEDs helped wounds heal faster (as cell growth is slowed in zero gravity, astronauts who were injured in space would have a harder time healing than they do on Earth). Light can also be harnessed to treat a variety of skin ailments from psoriasis and vitiligo, by way of acne scarring and rosacea, to cancer. New research has even demonstrated that light’s ability to heal subsurface tissue means it may be useful in treating traumatic brain injuries. Not every face mask can deliver the full benefits of red-light therapy. Research shows the optimal treatment for minimising wrinkles and rejuvenating skin would use a combination of red light, with a wavelength of at least 633nm, and NIR light of at least 830nm. The built-in bulbs must also produce light of sufficient power density, ideally 10-50 milliwatts per square centimetre—a new definition, perhaps, of youthful glow. 《紅光面罩真的那麼神嗎？》 📅 2025年9月26日｜約3分鐘閱讀 你有沒有在家偷偷做過一些只有自己知道的「美容小儀式」？ 像是敷面膜、貼痘痘貼、還是用那種會發光的奇怪機器？ 最近，一種「紅光面罩」的美容產品超級紅。 戴上去整張臉都發亮，看起來就像電影反派登場一樣， 但大家說它能讓你變年輕、變緊緻——真的嗎？ 這些所謂的「LED光療面罩」可不只一種顏色。 不同顏色的光據說有不同功效： 像是藍光可以對付痘痘，綠光能改善膚色不均， 而最受歡迎的，就是「紅光面罩」。 廠商宣稱紅光能刺激皮膚再生、減少皺紋， 還能讓肌膚更有彈性、更年輕。 聽起來是不是很夢幻？ 但其實，這些說法並非全是噱頭。 紅光的波長比其他可見光長， 這代表它能「更深入」地穿透皮膚， 而不會造成傷害。 當紅光進入皮膚後， 會刺激到一種叫做「發色團」（chromophores）的分子， 它們能活化皮下的細胞， 特別是「纖維母細胞」（fibroblasts）。 這些細胞在皮膚受傷或老化時會率先行動， 負責製造膠原蛋白（collagen）和彈性蛋白（elastin）。 這兩者正是讓肌膚看起來緊緻、有彈性的關鍵。 那紅光真的有效嗎？ 根據2007年一項發表在《光化學與光生物學期刊》的研究， 76位年齡介於35到55歲、有明顯老化跡象的受試者， 被要求只在臉的右半邊照紅光， 左半邊則作為對照組。 四週後，右邊的臉竟然看起來真的比較年輕！ 而且皮膚切片也證實——膠原蛋白真的增加了。 美國紐約醫學院皮膚研究主任 Shoshana Marmon 醫師指出， 小規模的研究確實顯示紅光對於改善痘痘、膚質和皺紋有幫助， 但效果「有限」。 她建議想要看到明顯變化的人， 最好一週使用三次，連續八到十二週， 同時搭配保濕霜、防曬乳，還有A醇產品。 她說：「紅光面罩可以加在你的保養程序裡， 但不能取代它們。」 事實上，抗老只是光療應用的一小部分。 早在1990年代，美國NASA的研究人員 就在植物、老鼠和人體組織上做過實驗。 他們發現LED光可以加速傷口癒合。 這對太空人來說特別重要—— 因為在太空失重環境下，細胞修復會變慢。 除此之外，光療還能用來治療多種皮膚問題， 像是牛皮癬、白斑、痘疤、酒糟性皮膚炎，甚至癌症。 最近的研究甚至發現， 紅光可能也能幫助治療創傷性腦損傷。 不過，可不是每一款紅光面罩都有效。 研究顯示，真正能減少皺紋、活化肌膚的關鍵在於： 紅光波長要至少 633奈米， 近紅外線（NIR）則要達到 830奈米。 燈的能量密度也要夠強—— 理想值大約是 每平方公分10到50毫瓦。 只有符合這些條件， 你才可能真的「由內而外」發出青春的光芒。 -- Hosting provided by SoundOn

Culture | Back Story First, they come for the comedians But, try as strongmen might, the jokes always get away Sep 22nd 2025|4 min read Josef Stalin loses his pipe and informs his security chief. Later he finds it behind the sofa. “That’s impossible,” says the henchman (黨羽), “three people have confessed to stealing it!” Lots of jokes were told about the Soviet generalissimo, proliferating long after he died. For instance: Stalin’s ghost visits Vladimir Putin. “Kill your opponents and paint the Kremlin blue,” he advises. “Why blue?” asks Putin. The ghost smiles. “I knew you wouldn’t query the first part.” While the tyrant lived, it was reckless to tell such jokes in public or to anyone who might report them. Even hearing them could be calamitous. “Who built the White Sea canal?” runs a gag about a monstrous infrastructure project. “The right bank was dug by the joke-tellers—the left by those who heard them.” “Every joke”, wrote George Orwell, “is a tiny revolution.” To silence the comedians, some autocrats use torturers and the gulag; in today’s Egypt and other stifled places, the penalties for ridicule can be prison and exile. In America the relatively mild tools include menacing regulators, as Jimmy Kimmel, a talk-show host, has learned. Yet whatever the comics’ fate, the jokes themselves get away. Authoritarians are inherently funny. Humour thrives on pretence and delusion—and the strongman is always pretending. He poses as a saviour but is actually a brute; he purports to be omnipotent but is as flawed as other mortals, or more. If he has an ideology, it is deficient too. Prickly and narcissistic, strongmen can rarely take jokes, which makes them risky but funnier. The Nazis banned “The Great Dictator” (pictured), in which Charlie Chaplin sent up Adolf Hitler, but the Führer reputedly watched it twice. Saddam Hussein tried to murder the cast of a satirical film. Political jokes, meanwhile, are the ideal weapon of the weak. Even without the internet, they travel at warp speed, traversing a country before the censors have their pens out. (According to a report cited in a BBC documentary, the KGB found a joke could cross Moscow in a matter of hours.) Crucially, a good gag is collusive, recruiting listeners to the teller’s side—or rather, making clear which side they are already on. They can’t help finding it funny, and it is funny because, at bottom, it is true. This bond can be a launch pad for politics, as it was for Beppe Grillo in Italy and Volodymyr Zelensky in Ukraine. Naturally, autocrats fret about people knowing that other people are thinking like them. According to the maximalist logic of repression, the fact that laughter is intimate, spontaneous and ephemeral heightens its appeal as a target: if rulers can suppress wit, they can control everything. But they can’t. As Ben Lewis recounts in “Hammer & Tickle”, a book about humour under communism, trying to squish a joke tends to spread it instead. When the laughter police give up this unequal fight, it is sign of liberalisation, voluntary or otherwise. At the fag-end of the Soviet Union, even Mikhail Gorbachev, its last leader, wisecracked about discontent and shortages. (“The working classes consume plenty of cognac—through their chosen representatives.”) A big comedy festival in Riyadh, beginning on September 26th, is supposed to advertise Saudi Arabia’s new freedoms. Hmmm: Tim Dillon, an American stand-up due to attend, says he was disinvited over a riff the organisers didn’t like. Canny authoritarians see the benefits of letting the gags flow. “If they are telling jokes about me,” Leonid Brezhnev is said to have remarked, “it means they love me,” and he wasn’t altogether wrong. Scabrous as it may be, satire always contains a trace of homage; after all, nobodies are never satirised. Humour can be a safety-valve for dissent and a homeopathic dose of plurality. It can also offer raw intel on the national mood, relaying hard truths and bad news as medieval jesters sometimes did to kings. But the wiliest strongmen, including some populists today, commandeer the audience. In an age when the struggle for power is a battle for attention, they are the carnival-barkers of the public square, dealing as much in one-liners and theatrical taunts as in policy. As politics is repackaged as entertainment, crackdowns—on comics and others—become part of the show, the threat to free expression blurred by the spectacle. The story of Bim-Bom, a circus-clown duo, is an ominous parable. Performing in Moscow in 1918, they made jokes about the Bolsheviks that the secret policemen in attendance disliked. The goons rushed the stage to arrest them. Thinking the chase was part of the act, the crowd hooted with laughter.■ 文化｜幕後故事 首先，他們來抓喜劇演員 但無論強人如何用力，笑話總能逃脫 2025年9月22日｜閱讀時間4分鐘 約瑟夫‧史達林丟了他的菸斗，並通知他的安全主管。後來他在沙發後找到了它。那名黨羽驚訝地說：「這不可能，已經有三個人承認偷了它！」關於這位蘇聯獨裁者的笑話層出不窮，甚至在他死後仍廣為流傳。例如：史達林的幽靈造訪弗拉基米爾‧普丁，建議道：「殺掉你的對手，然後把克里姆林宮漆成藍色。」普丁問：「為什麼是藍色？」幽靈微笑說：「我就知道你不會質疑第一部分。」 當暴君在世時，公開講這類笑話或向可能告密的人說，都極為冒險。甚至只是聽到也可能招致災禍。有一個關於殘酷基建工程——白海運河的笑話是這樣的：「誰建造了白海運河？右岸是講笑話的人挖的，左岸是聽笑話的人挖的。」 喬治‧歐威爾曾寫道：「每一個笑話，都是一場小小的革命。」為了讓喜劇演員閉嘴，有些獨裁者使用刑求與勞改營；在今日的埃及與其他受壓抑的地方，對諷刺的懲罰可能是監禁或流亡。在美國，手段相對溫和——例如脅迫性的監管，正如脫口秀主持人吉米‧金莫（Jimmy Kimmel）所體會到的那樣。無論喜劇演員的下場如何，笑話本身總能逃脫。 獨裁者天生具有可笑性。幽默植根於虛偽與妄想——而強人永遠在假裝。他假扮救世主，實則是暴君；他假裝全能，實際上卻與凡人一樣有缺陷，甚至更糟。若他有意識形態，那通常也是不堪一擊的。敏感而自戀的獨裁者鮮少能承受嘲諷——這使他們既危險又更具笑料。納粹禁止播放卓別林諷刺阿道夫‧希特勒的電影《大獨裁者》（見圖），但據說元首本人偷偷看了兩遍。薩達姆‧海珊甚至試圖暗殺一部諷刺電影的演員。 政治笑話則是弱者的理想武器。即使沒有網際網路，它們也能以極快速度傳播——往往在審查者動筆前便遍布全國。（根據英國廣播公司一部紀錄片引用的報告，蘇聯國安委員會發現，一個笑話可在數小時內傳遍莫斯科。）最關鍵的是，好笑話具有共謀性：它使聽眾自然而然站在講者那一邊——或更準確地說，讓人明白他們原本就屬於那一邊。因為那是真的，所以他們忍不住發笑。這種情感連結甚至能成為政治的跳板，正如義大利的貝佩‧葛里洛（Beppe Grillo）與烏克蘭的弗拉基米爾‧澤倫斯基（Volodymyr Zelensky）所示。 自然地，獨裁者會擔心人民知道其他人也有同樣的想法。依據極權鎮壓的邏輯，笑聲的親密、自發與短暫特質反而讓它成為更具吸引力的打擊目標：若統治者能壓制幽默，他們便能掌控一切——但他們做不到。班‧路易斯在其著作《鐵鎚與咯咯笑》（Hammer & Tickle）中記錄道，試圖扼殺笑話往往只會讓它傳得更廣。 當「笑聲警察」放棄這場不對等的鬥爭時，往往象徵著自由化的到來——無論是自願還是被迫。在蘇聯垂死之際，最後一任領導人米哈伊爾‧戈巴契夫也開始開自己與體制的玩笑：「工人階級消費了大量干邑——透過他們的代表。」沙烏地阿拉伯將於9月26日舉辦大型喜劇節，宣傳所謂的新自由。然而，美國脫口秀演員提姆‧狄倫（Tim Dillon）表示，他因一句令主辦方不悅的段子而被取消邀請——令人玩味。 精明的獨裁者則懂得讓笑話流通的好處。據說列昂尼德‧布里茲涅夫曾說：「如果他們講我的笑話，代表他們愛我。」這話也不全錯。再辛辣的諷刺，也帶有一絲敬意——畢竟，無名之輩從不被諷刺。幽默可作為反抗的安全閥，也是多元的一劑微量疫苗。它同時能傳遞民意，讓統治者得知如實的壞消息，正如中古時代的宮廷弄臣向國王傳達真話那樣。 然而，最狡猾的強人——包括當今一些民粹領袖——會奪取觀眾的注意力。在這個權力鬥爭與注意力爭奪合而為一的時代，他們成為公共廣場上的叫賣藝人，操弄的既是政策，也是笑話與嘲諷。當政治被包裝成娛樂，對喜劇演員與其他人的鎮壓本身也變成表演的一部分，自由受威脅的真相被秀場的煙火模糊了。 馬戲團小丑雙人組「比姆與邦」（Bim-Bom）的故事是一則不祥的寓言。1918年他們在莫斯科演出，開了布爾什維克的玩笑，惹惱了在場的祕密警察。特務衝上舞台準備逮人，觀眾卻以為那是表演的一部分，哄堂大笑。■ -- Hosting provided by SoundOn

United States | Stay in place It is getting much harder to get evicted in New York City Tenants win. Potential** tenants** lose One in one out Sep 25th 2025|NEW YORK |3 min read There are few things that unite all New Yorkers, but one is an obsession with talking about the housing market. And so it is no surprise that it is dominating the city’s mayoral election on November 5th. The Democratic candidate (and front-runner) Zohran Mamdani has made a slogan out of his promise to “freeze the rent” on the 50% of flats that are rent-stabilised. The trailing candidates have scraped together their own housing plans. Yet for all the noise, one thing has been missed: New York City’s rental sector has already changed rather dramatically. Last year the city had the lowest apartment-vacancy rate in almost 60 years. And yet at the same time, landlords filed almost 50% fewer eviction cases than in 2016. Completed evictions are down by a quarter. New rights and procedures introduced over the past decade have transformed the legal landscape for tenants. A decade ago, one in ten New York City renters faced eviction proceedings every year. Evictions are costly, financially and in human and social terms. After being evicted, renters tend to see their incomes fall, they are more likely to become homeless and they visit hospital emergency rooms more often. For children, being evicted has roughly the same impact on high-school graduation rates as being in juvenile incarceration. For landlords, evictions can cost the equivalent of two to three months of rent, not including the vacancy rent gap while new tenants are found. The first big change came in 2017, when the city introduced a right for poor tenants to legal representation. This was followed by a new tenants’ rights law passed by the state government in 2019. The effects of both seem to have been dramatic (see chart). Before the representation law came in, just one in 100 tenants had counsel, compared with 95% of landlords. On paper, tenants in New York benefit from powerful legal protections, but in practice, without lawyers, these are hard to enforce. Since the change, landlords do seem to have stopped filing as many legally weak eviction cases. That is despite limited funding. Munonyedi Clifford of New York’s Legal Aid Society says she has been hiring “like gangbusters” but it is not enough. Ms Clifford also says that the 2019 law passed by the state “really changed the landscape”. Landlords agree. The law “systematically changed the economics of housing”, says Kenny Burgos of the New York Apartment Association, which represents property owners. More change came last year: the state limited rent increases further and now requires some landlords to renew most leases automatically. The trouble with all this is that there is inevitably a trade-off. Existing tenants are certainly better off. But newcomers and movers find it harder and more expensive to find a place to live, as landlords become more cautious. Nicole Upano of the National Apartment Association, a landlord trade association, says many are already introducing stricter screening to exclude risky tenants. In Washington, DC, pandemic-era rules made evictions harder and slower. Unpaid rent rose from $11m in 2020 to $100m in 2025. Affordable housing disappeared from the market, as landlords became more conservative. The city is now rolling back many of the changes. ■ 我們要聊一個幾乎所有紐約人都會談的話題——房市。是的，不管立場怎麼分，紐約人都對住房市場特別「執著」。所以一點也不意外，今年 11 月 5 日的市長選舉，房租問題成了主戰場。 民主黨候選人、目前的領先者 Zohran Mamdani，打出了「凍結房租」的口號，特別針對那一半屬於租金管制的公寓。其他落後的候選人，也急忙拚湊出各自的住房政策。不過在這些喧鬧聲裡，有個事實被忽略了：紐約市的租屋市場，其實已經發生了很大的變化。 去年，紐約的空屋率降到將近 60 年來的最低。但有趣的是，房東提出的驅逐案件，比 2016 年少了將近一半。最終真的被趕走的租客，也下降了四分之一。過去十年裡，市府陸續推出了新的租客權益和法律程序，徹底改變了遊戲規則。 十年前，每十個租客裡，就有一個人每年要面臨驅逐官司。對租客來說，驅逐不只是金錢損失，更是人生和社會上的重擊。收入下降、增加無家可歸的風險、醫院急診室報到的次數也變多。對孩子來說，被趕出家門，對高中畢業率的打擊，差不多就像進了少年感化院一樣。至於房東，驅逐同樣很傷，成本大概等於兩到三個月的租金，還不包括空屋時的租金損失。 2017 年，第一個大轉變出現：市政府宣布低收入租客有權獲得法律代理。2019 年，州政府又通過一套新的租客權益法。這些改變帶來的影響相當驚人。 在法案通過之前，幾乎只有 1% 的租客有律師幫忙，而房東有 95% 都請得起律師。紙面上，租客看似有強大的保護，但沒有律師，這些保護根本很難落實。自從政策改變後，房東明顯少提一些「站不住腳」的驅逐案。 紐約法律援助協會的 Clifford 說，她正在「瘋狂招人」，但仍然不夠用。她也提到 2019 年的新法，真的「徹底改變了局勢」。連房東也承認，這部法律「改變了住房經濟的規則」。接著，去年又有新規：州政府限制了更多的租金漲幅，並要求部分房東必須自動續約。 不過，事情也有另一面。現有的租客的確更有保障，但新搬來的人，或是想換房子的人，反而更難找到可負擔的住處。因為房東變得更謹慎，開始設更嚴格的審核，直接把「高風險租客」排除在外。 其實在華盛頓特區也有類似的經驗。疫情期間，他們讓驅逐變得更困難、更緩慢，結果未繳租金的金額，從 2020 年的 1100 萬美元，暴增到 2025 年的 1 億美元。可負擔住房消失，房東更保守。現在，華府正在逐步取消這些規定。 總結來說，保護租客和維持市場之間，始終存在一個拉鋸。舊租客受益，卻可能讓新租客更難進入。那麼紐約要怎麼平衡？也許這會是選戰裡最難解的題目。 -- Hosting provided by SoundOn

United States | Lexington The real collusion between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin It may be scarier than their critics long suspected Aug 14th 2025|5 min read To DEFY Donald Trump is to court punishment. A rival politician can expect an investigation, an aggravating network may face a lawsuit, a left-leaning university can bid farewell to its public grants, a scrupulous civil servant can count on a pink slip and an independent-minded foreign government, however determined an adversary or stalwart an ally, invites tariffs. Perceived antagonists should also brace for a hail of insults, a lesson in public humiliation to potential transgressors. Vladimir Putin has been a mysterious exception. Mr Trump has blamed his travails over Russia’s interference in the 2016 election on just about everyone but him. He has blamed the war in Ukraine on former President Joe Biden, for supposedly inviting it through weakness, and on the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, for somehow starting it. Back when Russia invaded in February 2022, Mr Trump praised Mr Putin’s “savvy”. For months, as Mr Putin made a mockery of Mr Trump’s promises to end the war in a day and of his calls for a ceasefire, the president who once threatened “fire and fury” against North Korea and tariffs as high as 245% against China indulged in no such bluster. He has sounded less formidable than plaintive. “Vladimir, STOP!” he wrote on social media in April. His use of the given name betrayed a touching faith that their shared intimacy would matter to his reptilian counterpart, too. When Mr Putin kept killing Ukrainians, Mr Trump took a step that was even less characteristic: he admitted to the world that he had been played for a fool. “Maybe he doesn’t want to stop the war, he’s just tapping me along,” he mused on April 26th. A month later, he ventured that his friend must have changed, gone “absolutely CRAZY!” Then on July 8th he acknowledged what should have been obvious from the start: “He is very nice all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless.” Mr Trump threatened secondary sanctions on Russia but then leapt at Mr Putin’s latest mixed messages about peace, rewarding him with a summit in America. Why, with this man, has Mr Trump been so accommodating? Efforts by journalists, congressional investigators and prosecutors to pinpoint the reason have often proved exercises in self-defeat and sorrow. The pattern seemed sinister: Mr Trump praised Mr Putin on television as far back as 2007; invited him to the Miss Universe Pageant in Moscow in 2013 and wondered on Twitter if he would be his “new best friend”; sought his help to build a tower in Moscow from 2013 to 2016; and tried unsuccessfully many times in 2015 to secure a meeting with him. Then came Russia’s interference in the election in 2016, including its hack of Democrats’ emails to undermine the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton. Some journalists fanned suspicions of a conspiracy—“collusion” became the watchword—by spreading claims Mr Putin was blackmailing Mr Trump with an obscene videotape. The source proved to be a rumour compiled in research to help Mrs Clinton. Nine years later Mr Putin’s low-budget meddling still rewards America’s foes by poisoning its politics and distracting its leaders. Pam Bondi, the attorney-general, has started a grand-jury investigation into what Mr Trump called treason by Barack Obama and others in his administration. The basis is a misrepresentation of an intelligence finding in the waning days of Mr Obama’s presidency. Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, has said that because Mr Putin did not hack voting machines, the finding that he tried to help Mr Trump was a lie. The conclusion under Mr Obama was instead that Mr Putin tried to affect the election by influencing public opinion. The exhaustive report released in 2019 by an independent counsel, Robert Mueller, affirmed on its first page that “the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome.” Mr Mueller indicted numerous Russians, and he also secured guilty pleas from some Trump aides for violating various laws. But he did not conclude the campaign “conspired or co-ordinated” with the Russians. To wade through the report’s two volumes is to be reminded how malicious the Russians were and how shambolic Mr Trump’s campaign was. It is also to lament the time and energy spent, given how little proof was found to support the superheated suspicions. And it is to regret how little Mr Trump was accorded a presumption of innocence. In the final words of the report, Mr Mueller noted that while it did not accuse Mr Trump of a crime, it also did “not exonerate him”. One might understand his bitterness. The puzzle of Mr Trump’s admiration for Mr Putin may have been better addressed by psychologists. Certainly Mr Putin, the seasoned KGB operative, has known how to play to his vulnerabilities, including vanity. Mr Trump was said to be “clearly touched” by a kitschy portrait of himself Mr Putin gave him in March. Putin on the blitz Yet that patronising speculation may be unfair to Mr Trump, too. It certainly understates the hazard. He has weighty reasons to identify with Mr Putin. Since the 1930s a cornerstone of American foreign policy has been that no country can gain territory by force, a principle also enshrined in the charter of the United Nations. Yet in his first term, in pursuit of his vision of Middle East peace, Mr Trump twice granted American recognition of conquered territory, for Israel’s claim to the Golan Heights and Morocco’s claim to Western Sahara. He appears to envisage an end to the war in Ukraine that would also award Russia new territory. This is how “savvy” people like Mr Trump and Mr Putin believe the world actually works, or ought to: not according to rules confected by stripy-pants diplomats to preserve an international order, but in deference to power exercised by great men. A world hostage to that theory may be the legacy of their true collusion. 川普與普丁之間真正的「合作」 或許比批評者原先懷疑的更可怕 2025年8月14日｜閱讀時間約5分鐘 挑戰唐納·川普，往往等於自找麻煩。 一位政壇對手可能會遭到調查，一家不順眼的媒體可能被告上法庭，一所左傾大學可能失去政府資助，一名堅持原則的公務員可能拿到解僱通知；而若是一個獨立自主的外國政府，不論是盟友還是敵人，也得準備面對關稅報復。任何被川普視為敵對的人，都要提防公開羞辱與一連串的嘲諷。 然而，弗拉基米爾·普丁卻一直是個神秘的例外。 川普對於2016年俄羅斯干預美國大選的麻煩，幾乎怪遍了所有人，卻從不怪普丁。他把烏克蘭戰爭歸咎於前總統拜登，認為拜登的「軟弱」招致戰火；也怪烏克蘭總統澤連斯基，說他 somehow 是挑起戰爭的人。當俄軍在2022年2月入侵時，川普還稱讚普丁「精明」。 數月以來，普丁不斷嘲笑川普「一天內結束戰爭」的承諾，也無視他呼籲停火的喊話。這位曾經對北韓放話「烈火與怒火」、對中國威脅高達245%關稅的總統，如今卻顯得軟弱而哀求。今年四月，他在社群媒體上寫下：「Vladimir，停手吧！」直接喊對方名字，彷彿相信兩人的私交能打動這位冷血的前克格勃。 當普丁繼續轟炸烏克蘭時，川普做了一件更罕見的事：他承認自己被耍了。 「也許他根本不想停戰，只是在拖我時間。」川普在4月26日這樣嘆道。一個月後，他甚至說普丁「完全瘋了！」到7月8日，他終於承認：「他一直表現得很友善，但結果毫無意義。」川普雖然放話要對俄國加碼制裁，但不久又被普丁若即若離的「和平」訊號所打動，立刻邀請他來美國舉行高峰會。 為什麼川普在普丁面前總是這麼低聲下氣？ 多年來，媒體、國會調查與檢察官都想找出答案，卻往往徒勞無功。這段關係看起來確實可疑：早在2007年，川普就在電視上稱讚普丁；2013年邀請他出席莫斯科的環球小姐選美，還在推特上問他會不會成為「新好朋友」；2013到2016年間，他努力推動莫斯科川普大樓計畫；2015年多次想安排與普丁會面卻失敗。接著就是2016年大選，俄國駭入民主黨郵件、打擊希拉蕊·柯林頓。部分記者更傳出普丁握有川普「不雅錄影帶」勒索他的謠言，後來證實只是競選對手聘請的研究拼湊而成。 九年後，普丁低成本的干預仍然持續製造混亂，削弱美國政治。 司法部長潘·龐迪已經著手大陪審團調查，指控歐巴馬政府「叛國」。依據的卻是對當年情報的一個扭曲解讀。情報總監圖爾西·蓋伯德甚至聲稱，既然俄國沒有入侵投票機，當年「普丁想幫助川普」的結論就是謊言。其實，歐巴馬政府的原始判斷是：普丁透過輿論操作，意圖影響大選。 2019年，特別檢察官穆勒的報告開宗明義寫道：「俄羅斯政府認為川普當選有利於它，並努力促成這個結果。」 穆勒起訴了多名俄國人，也讓一些川普幕僚因觸法認罪。但他並未認定川普陣營「共謀或協調」俄方行動。讀完那兩卷厚重的報告，人們不僅看到俄國的惡意、川普團隊的混亂，也不得不感嘆：投入的時間與精力與證據不成比例，結果只是空轉。報告最後一句話更留下餘韻：「本報告不指控川普犯罪，但也不為他洗清嫌疑。」可以理解為何川普心存怨恨。 或許，川普對普丁的迷戀更適合交給心理學家解釋。 普丁這位老練的前特務，非常懂得如何迎合川普的弱點，尤其是他的虛榮心。據說，今年三月普丁送給川普一幅俗氣的肖像畫，他看了「非常感動」。 不過，把這解釋為單純的個性缺陷，可能也低估了危險。川普與普丁其實有深層的共同點。 自1930年代以來，美國外交政策的一大基石，就是「不能透過武力獲取領土」，這一點也寫進了聯合國憲章。但川普在第一任期卻打破慣例：承認以色列對戈蘭高地的主權，承認摩洛哥對西撒哈拉的主權。他如今似乎打算讓俄國在烏克蘭戰爭中也保有新的領土。 這正是川普與普丁眼中的「聰明」世界：不是依靠國際秩序與外交規則，而是由強人憑藉權力決定邊界。 如果世界最終被這種理論所俘虜，那才是真正的「合作」遺產。 -- Hosting provided by SoundOn

Business | Marketing missteps How do you pronounce Biemlfdlkk? The brands lost in translation As they race to go global, many Chinese companies are choosing new names A brand you’ll never forget Sep 11th 2025|SHANGHAI|3 min read Biemlfdlkk is a mouthful. It is not exactly clear how to enunciate the eight-consonant jumble in the Chinese golf-apparel brand’s English name. It is even hard to write. But the company is expanding overseas, recently acquiring two foreign brands. This was probably a factor that led it to ditching the odd string of letters it had operated under for 21 years. This year it is swapping the old name for one that is a bit more intelligible: Biemlofen. Chinese brands are moving into foreign markets as never before. The way they **are perceived **when they arrive depends not just on the quality of their product but also on their name. A few companies are already mastering foreign branding. Haidilao, a restaurant chain specialising in spicy soups, has started using the word Hi as a simplified name at its overseas shops. Pop Mart, the toy company that makes the sensational Labubu dolls, looks right at home in America or Europe. Shein, an online fashion firm, based its Chinese name, pronounced xi yin, on its English one (an abbreviation of SheInside). These are the few that are getting it right. Many others struggle. Take, for example, Mixue, a cold drinks and ice-cream chain that is opening thousands of shops outside China. The company’s name translates to “honey snow”, but instead of making use of that overseas it has employed the phonetic version of its Chinese name, which is not easy to pronounce. The name will limit the brand’s growth abroad, predicts Chris Pereira of iMpact, a consulting firm, since people will not know how to say it when recommending it to friends. Many Chinese companies chose ill-conceived foreign names decades ago and have simply stuck with them. Perhaps White Elephant, a Chinese battery brand that is becoming popular in Africa, should have stuck with its phonetic Chinese name. Chint, an electronics maker founded in 1984, chose an English name that faintly reflects its Chinese one but sounds closer to “chintzy”, American slang for cheaply made. Many firms try to turn their Chinese name into one that sounds Western, but end up with nonsense: Youngor, a fashion brand, is one example. And yet this is often preferable to experimenting with symbolism in a foreign tongue, as demonstrated by the Chinese sunglasses brand that named itself after the world’s most famous blind person, Helen Keller. Foreign-sounding names that provide international flair at home can be less helpful in overseas markets. Adolph, a Chinese shampoo-maker, might have convinced some Chinese people that it is German, but it may find the name does not help it sell products in Germany. Cracking the language and culture of any foreign market is tough. Western firms in China know this all too well. Peugeot, a French carmaker (owned by Stellantis, whose largest shareholder part-owns The Economist), has an unremarkable Chinese name when said in Mandarin, the national language. But in Cantonese, a southern dialect, the name Peugeot sounds unfortunately close to “bitch”.■ 商業｜行銷失誤：Biemlfdlkk 該怎麼唸？當品牌遇上翻譯困境 在全球化的浪潮下，許多中國品牌正在積極走向海外。但名字選得好不好，往往會決定一個品牌在國際市場上能不能被記住。 以中國的高爾夫服飾品牌 Biemlfdlkk 為例。這個名字光是拼寫就夠讓人頭痛，更別說要正確念出來了。經營了 21 年後，這家公司終於決定換掉這串八個子音拼湊出來的怪名字，改成稍微順口一點的 Biemlofen。這一決定，正好發生在他們併購了兩個海外品牌、積極拓展國際市場之後。 不過，也不是所有中國品牌都在國際化命名上摔跤。像是火鍋連鎖 海底撈，在海外乾脆簡化成「Hi」，讓外國顧客一看就懂。又或者是爆紅的玩具公司 泡泡瑪特 Pop Mart，名字放在歐美市場完全沒有違和感。快時尚品牌 Shein 更是取巧，從英文「SheInside」簡化而來，中文名字「希音」也呼應了英文發音。 相比之下，有些品牌就顯得吃力。比方說冷飲和冰淇淋連鎖 蜜雪冰城。它的中文意思是「蜂蜜雪」，很有意境，但到了海外卻堅持使用「Mixue」這個拼音。結果外國人不僅難以發音，更難把這名字傳口碑。顧問公司 iMpact 的 Chris Pereira 就直言，這樣會限制品牌在國際市場的成長。 還有一些公司，早年隨便挑了英文名字，結果一路用到現在。電池品牌 白象 White Elephant，在非洲很受歡迎，但用「大象」的拼音可能更直白。電子公司 正泰，在 1984 年創立時選了英文名 Chint，雖然勉強算呼應了中文，但聽起來卻和英文的「chintzy」（意指廉價的）很接近。服裝品牌 Youngor，名字雖然帶點西化的味道，但實際上毫無意義。 還有更尷尬的例子。中國太陽眼鏡品牌居然取名 Helen Keller——就是那位最有名的盲人作家。至於洗髮精品牌 Adolph，或許在中國人眼裡帶點德國風格，但若真想在德國賣，恐怕只會引來誤會。 其實這樣的挑戰，各國品牌在異地市場都會遇到。像法國車商 Peugeot（標致），中文名字在普通話裡沒什麼問題，但在廣東話裡，聽起來卻和「婊子」非常接近。這種文化與語言的差異，讓跨國行銷充滿了難題。 所以說，走向世界光靠產品力還不夠，品牌名字能不能被外國人念對、記住，往往就是成敗的關鍵。 -- Hosting provided by SoundOn

不唸書的下場是我們的政治越來越愚蠢了? Is the decline of reading making politics dumber? As people read less they think less clearly, **scholars **fear Sep 4th 2025 The experiment was simple; so too, you may have thought, was the task. Students of literature at two American universities were given the first paragraphs of “Bleak House” by Charles Dickens and asked to read and then explain them. In other words: some students reading English literature were asked to read some English literature from the mid-19th century. How hard could it be? Very, it turns out. The students **were flummoxed by legal language and baffled by **metaphor. A Dickensian description of fog left them totally fogged. They could not grasp basic vocabulary: one student thought that when a man was said to have “whiskers” it meant he was “in a room with an animal I think…A cat?” The problem was less that these students of literature were not literary and more that they were barely even literate. Reading is in trouble. Multiple studies in multiple places seem to be showing the same thing. Adults are reading less. Children are reading less. Teenagers are reading a lot less. Very small children are being read to less; many are not being read to at all. Reading rates are lower among poorer children—a phenomenon known as “the reading gap”—but reading is down for everyone, everywhere. In America, the share of people who read for pleasure has fallen by two-fifths in 20 years, according to a study published in August in iScience, a journal. YouGov, a pollster, found that 40% of Britons had not read or listened to any books in 2024. Reading for displeasure is little better: as Sir Jonathan Bate, an English professor at Oxford University, has said, students “struggle to get through one novel in three weeks”. Even the educated young, another greybeard said, have “no habits of application and concentration”. Such laments should be treated with caution: almost the only thing bookish sorts love more than books is complaining about books and reading. They always have done: the greybeard above was Dickens in, ironically, “Bleak House”. Almost as soon as people stopped fretting about the arrival of reading—Socrates feared it would “produce forgetfulness” in those who used it; Ecclesiastes says that “of making many books there is no end”—people started fretting about its decline. As Ecclesiastes also says, “there is nothing new under the sun”. Arguably, however, what is happening now is new. It is not just that people are reading less, though they are; the texture of what is being read is changing, too. Sentences are getting shorter and simpler. We analysed hundreds of New York Times bestsellers and found that sentences in popular books have contracted by almost a third since the 1930s. Open the Victorian bestseller “Modern Painters” by John Ruskin and you will find that its first sentence is 153 words long. It contains the stern advice that you should not trust the “erroneous opinion” of the public and includes a subheading that reads: “Public opinion no criterion of excellence”. Open Amazon’s current non-fiction bestseller, “The Let Them Theory” by Mel Robbins, and you will find that its first sentence is just 19 words long. A subheading reads “How I Changed My Life”. Among its stern advice is that, to get things done, you should count backwards like NASA at a rocket launch because, “Once you start the countdown, 5-4-3-2-1, there’s no turning back.” This is a reminder that Ruskin knew a thing or two. Smartphones are blamed for dwindling reading habits—and certainly the number of distractions has increased. But reading has always been a bother. “A big book”, said Callimachus, an ancient Greek poet, “is a big evil.” This is particularly true after lunch. You sit down to read then, as one writer noted, the sun streams in, the day feels “50 hours long”, the reader “rubs his eyes” then finally places the book “under his head and…falls into a light sleep”. Given that that particular reader was a fourth-century monk and ascetic he was probably not distracted by Snapchat. So it is not merely that distractions have increased: the sheer desire to read seems to have declined. In the Victorian era, self-improvement societies flourished. In the Scottish hills, shepherds “maintained a kind of circulating library”, writes Jonathan Rose in his magnificent book “The Intellectual Life of the British Working Classes”. Each shepherd left books in the crannies of walls for other shepherds to read. In Victorian mill towns, workers saved up to buy books. In one Scottish locale, a boy noticed a ragman reading a book. The book—which the ragman lent him—was Thucydides. The boy was Ramsay MacDonald, who would go on to become Britain’s first Labour prime minister. Today that zeal for personal advancement has diminished. Some blame the high cost of books and closing of libraries for modern intellectual apathy—but books have never been cheaper. In Roman times, a book cost three-quarters of a camel (ie, a lot). In the Victorian era, a copy of Lord Byron’s “Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage” cost a labourer about half a week’s income. And yet, by the end of the 18th century, literacy rates among Scotland’s autodidacts were among the highest in the world. Today “Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage” is free on Kindle, and readers can find plenty of other books that cost less than a coffee. But reading rates keep falling. A blunter explanation is that people just cannot be bothered. Professor Bate got everyone in a bate with his comments about students not reading: saying such things, he admits, might seem “old fogeyish”. Speak to professors, however and they all lament their students’ waning attention spans. When Professor Rose began teaching, he taught “Bleak House”. He would not attempt it today, he says, partly because of “constant pressure” from university deans to “assign less and less and less reading” and partly because “students simply won’t read it”. In multiple surveys young people describe reading as “boring” and “a chore”. It is possible to say: who cares? English professors may well lament a fall in literacy, but that may be simple self-interest: less a concern about a declining custom than a declining number of customers. Yet literacy affects more than university reading lists. For one thing, increasing literary sophistication seems to lead to increasing political sophistication. At its simplest, Athenians in the fifth century BC could begin to practise “ostracism”—voting to banish people by writing their name on ostraka, scraps of pots—because, as William Harris, an academic, points out, they had achieved “a certain amount of literacy”. By contrast, decreasing** literary sophistication** may lead to decreasing political sophistication. Our analysis of Britain’s parliamentary speeches found that they have shrunk by a third in a decade. We also analysed almost 250 years of inaugural presidential addresses using the Flesch-Kincaid readability test. George Washington’s scored 28.7, denoting postgraduate level, while Donald Trump’s came in at 9.4, the reading level of a high-schooler. This is not inherently a bad thing. Often simple prose is good prose, and few people have ever wished politicians’ speeches to be longer. Professor Bate is more pessimistic. Lose the ability to read complex prose and he fears you may also lose the ability to develop complex ideas that “allow you to see nuance and to hold two contradictory thoughts together”. The medium is the message, and the message is currently 280 characters long. (“Bleak House”, by contrast, weighs in at around 1.9m characters.) There will be other losses from a reading decline. Few engines of social mobility are more effective than reading: just ask the Scottish shepherds. Rich children may do it more, but reading is an egalitarian invention. No one—not your nanny, not your tutor, your friends or your posh school—can impel you to devour a book except you. Reading is not merely a tool: it is also one of life’s great pleasures, as Dickens knew well. As Joe, the kind blacksmith in “Great Expectations”, says: “Give me a good book…and sit me down afore a good fire, and I ask no better.” Once people forget that, things really will feel bleak. ■ 大家好，今天要跟大家聊一個有點沉重，但也很有趣的主題：「閱讀的衰退，會不會讓政治變笨？」 故事要從一個實驗開始。美國兩所大學的文學系學生，被要求閱讀狄更斯《荒涼山莊》開頭的幾段文字，然後解釋其中的意思。聽起來簡單吧？結果——非常難。學生們完全被法律語言搞糊塗，被隱喻卡住。甚至有人以為「whiskers（鬍鬚）」是指「房間裡有動物吧？像是貓？」——可以想像教授們有多頭大。 問題不只是學生「不夠文學」，而是，他們甚至「不太識字」。 📉 各種研究都指出：我們正在「集體不讀書」。成年人讀得少，孩子讀得少，青少年讀得更少。連小朋友被爸媽念故事書的機會也下降了，許多甚至完全沒有。這就是所謂的「閱讀鴻溝」。 在美國，20 年內，閱讀休閒書籍的人數下降了 40%。英國情況也差不多：2024 年，四成的英國人一本書都沒讀。即使是大學生，他們也覺得讀一本小說要三週以上，好像在爬山。教授們說得更直接：年輕人「沒有專注的習慣」。 當然啦，學者抱怨年輕人不讀書，好像從古至今都一樣。蘇格拉底就曾擔心，文字會讓人健忘。《傳道書》裡也寫過：「著書多，沒有窮盡。」但現在的狀況似乎真的有點不一樣。 📖 文章裡提到一個有趣的發現：我們的句子越來越短。 《紐約時報》暢銷書裡的句子，平均比 1930 年代縮短了三分之一。 維多利亞時代的暢銷書《現代畫家》第一句長達 153 個字，還附帶哲學性的標題：「大眾的意見不是衡量優秀的標準。」對照現在 Amazon 的暢銷書，開頭只有 19 個字，標題則是「我如何改變人生」。更別提「方法」是：倒數 5 秒就能逼自己行動，像火箭發射一樣。 這種對比，不只是風格變了，而是「思維的深度」也可能跟著流失。 📱 很多人怪智慧型手機，說它搶走了我們的注意力。確實，分心比以前更容易。但其實「讀書本來就麻煩」。古希臘詩人就說過：「大本的書，就是大麻煩。」甚至在四世紀，一位修士寫道：讀到一半就打瞌睡，把書當枕頭。顯然，他也不是因為 Snapchat而分心的。 真正不同的是：想要讀的慾望，變少了。 維多利亞時代，工人和牧羊人拼命自學。他們會把書藏在石牆縫裡，輪流傳閱。有人甚至因為向破布商借到一本修昔底德，而啟發了政治志向，最後成為英國第一位工黨首相。那種對「知識改變命運」的熱情，如今似乎消失了。 有人說，是因為書太貴或圖書館關閉。但事實上，現在的書比歷史上任何時候都便宜。《哈羅德遊記》當年要一個工人半週工資才能買，而現在 Kindle 上免費。問題不是買不起，而是：大家懶得讀。 📚 教授們無奈地承認，他們已經不敢再開《荒涼山莊》這樣的大本書課程了。原因不只是學校壓力，而是學生根本「讀不下去」。在調查裡，年輕人直接說：讀書「很無聊」、「很累」。 那問題來了：我們真的需要擔心嗎？ 其實，閱讀和政治之間有著微妙的關係。古雅典能夠實行「陶片放逐法」，就是因為有足夠的識字率。識字能力，直接影響了政治參與和思考深度。 現代數據也反映了這點。英國國會的演講篇幅，十年內縮短了三分之一。美國總統的就職演說，用可讀性測試來比：華盛頓的演講屬於研究所等級；川普的演講，只有高中程度。 這不一定是壞事。簡單的文字，往往也能清楚有力。但學者們擔心的是：如果我們失去閱讀複雜文本的能力，就可能也失去思考複雜問題的能力。 無法同時容納矛盾，無法理解細微差異。當政治只剩下 280 個字的推文，深度自然也消失了。 最後還有一個更現實的問題：閱讀是社會流動的最佳工具之一。當年蘇格蘭牧羊人靠閱讀跨越階級，今天卻連免費的經典書籍都吸引不了人。閱讀，不只是學習的工具，更是一種生活的樂趣。 正如狄更斯筆下的鐵匠 Joe 說的：「給我一本好書，再加上一個暖爐，我就心滿意足。」 如果我們忘記了這種樂趣，人生可能真的會變得更「荒涼」。 -- Hosting provided by SoundOn

**The rise of **beer made by AI Customers love it Aug 27th 2025 WHEN BECK’S, a storied German brewery founded in the city of Bremen in 1873, celebrated its 150th anniversary in 2023 it decided to bring in a new brewmaster to mark the occasion: ChatGPT, an artificial-intelligence (AI) chatbot. The company asked it to whip up a recipe using only hops, yeast, water, and malt. The result was “Beck’s Autonomous”, a lager with a subtle sweetness, a hoppy** texture**, and quite a head. One Daily Mail reporter considered it better than the brewery’s standard lager. Beer and AI may seem an unlikely pairing, but Beck’s is far from the only brand to have asked for input from the technology. Atwater Brewery, an American firm, introduced an AI-designed citrusy India pale ale (IPA) in 2023 and last year St Austell Brewery in Britain used AI to create a tropical IPA dubbed “Hand Brewed by Robots”. In March Coedo Brewery in Japan asked an AI model to analyse the preferences of people in their 20s, 30s, 40s, and 50s, and then developed four craft beers, one for each age range. In general the response from customers, brewers say, has been overwhelmingly positive. “It gives us access to new recipes that we didn’t think about before,” says Prinz Pinakatt, boss of the beer business for Tilray Brands, Atwater’s New York-based parent company. Machine-learning tools can parse the minutiae of complex flavours, analyse the ingredients and equipment that an individual brewery has available, and then concoct new recipes while tweaking sweetness, acidity, hop level and other attributes to ensure the end product appeals to discerning customers. Beau Warren, who opened the Species X Beer Project brewery in America in 2021, knows this firsthand. In 2022 he started training AI models on a number of parameters—his proprietary recipes, different types of yeast, water acidity, various hops, the ingredients in the brewery cellar, the typical makeup of lagers, stouts and other beers—and, by 2024, began using it to guide the brewing process. In one instance, after being asked to make a new lager, the bot suggested mixing Maris Otter malt, usually found in stouts, with Belgian candi syrup. “I would never have thought of doing that in a lager, ever,” he says. “We brewed it anyway, and I thought it was one of the best lagers I’ve ever made.” His customers apparently thought the same: Mr Warren says patrons usually rated the AI-crafted beers better than any of the beers thought up by he and his fellow brewers. (That said, the AI beers at Species X are no more: the brewery closed down last autumn owing to financial difficulties.) Scientists are also intrigued about what bots might tell them about the chemistry of beer. In 2024 researchers from KU Leuven, a university in Belgium, analysed the chemical makeup of 250 Belgian beers, including lagers, blonds and West Flanders ales. They then trained machine-learning algorithms to model the effects of adding or subtracting different aroma compounds, such as glycerol and lactic acid, on the taste. “The models we develop help us to understand the complex relationship between the chemistry of a beer, its taste, and how consumers will like it,” says Kevin Verstrepen, a bioscience engineer who led the research team. Of course, it will take more than a chatbot to replace a human brewer. Ingredients must be poured, brew kettles must be tended and the beers must be tasted—whether they were made totally by human hands, or brewed, at least in part, by robots. “Yes, AI will become more and more part of the brewing process, but the brewing itself, the craft, is still the emphasis,” says Mr Pinakatt. “It will be very difficult to have machines make our beers.” ■ 當 Beck’s——這家創立於 1873 年、位於德國不來梅的老字號啤酒廠——在 2023 年迎來 150 週年慶時，他們決定邀請一位特別的釀酒師：人工智慧聊天機器人 ChatGPT。 公司要求它只使用啤酒的基本原料——啤酒花、酵母、水和麥芽——來設計一份新配方。最後誕生的是一款名為「Beck’s Autonomous」的拉格啤酒。這款酒帶有微微的甜味、濃郁的酒花香氣，還有豐厚的泡沫。根據《每日郵報》的記者試喝後表示，甚至比 Beck’s 的經典款還要好。 乍聽之下，啤酒和 AI 好像是八竿子打不著的組合，但 Beck’s 絕不是唯一嘗試的品牌。美國的 Atwater Brewery 在 2023 年推出了一款由 AI 設計的柑橘風味 IPA。隔年，英國的 St Austell Brewery 也用 AI 釀造出一款熱帶風味的 IPA，名字叫「Hand Brewed by Robots」。2024 年 3 月，日本的 Coedo Brewery 更是請 AI 分析不同年齡層——20、30、40、50 歲——的口味喜好，再釀出四款各自對應的精釀啤酒。總體來說，消費者的反應非常正面。 「這讓我們得到以前從沒想過的配方。」Atwater 母公司 Tilray Brands 啤酒業務負責人 Prinz Pinakatt 說。機器學習工具能精細分析複雜的風味、配料和釀酒設備，接著設計出新配方，並調整甜度、酸度、啤酒花的濃度等元素，確保最終的產品能打動挑剔的消費者。 美國的 Species X Beer Project 釀酒廠創辦人 Beau Warren 就深有體會。他在 2022 年開始訓練 AI 模型，輸入了自己的獨家配方、各種酵母、水的酸鹼度、不同的啤酒花、以及啤酒的種類數據。到 2024 年，他正式讓 AI 參與釀造過程。有一次，他要求 AI 設計一款新的拉格，結果 AI 建議把通常用在世濤啤酒的「Maris Otter 麥芽」，與比利時糖漿混合在一起。Warren 說：「我從來沒想過拉格會這樣做，但我們還是照著釀了，結果發現這是我喝過最好喝的拉格之一。」顧客的評價也很高，普遍認為 AI 釀造的酒比他和同事設計的更好。不過，儘管酒很受歡迎，Species X 最後還是在去年秋天因財務問題關閉了。 不只是釀酒師，科學家也對 AI 在啤酒化學上的應用充滿興趣。2024 年，比利時魯汶大學的研究團隊分析了 250 款當地啤酒，從拉格、金色啤酒到西佛蘭德艾爾。他們用機器學習模型來模擬不同化學物質——像是甘油和乳酸——對風味的影響。研究負責人、生命科學工程師 Kevin Verstrepen 說：「我們開發的模型能幫助理解啤酒化學成分、口感，以及消費者喜好的複雜關係。」 當然，AI 不會完全取代釀酒師。畢竟，原料要有人投入，釀酒槽要有人照看，啤酒最後也必須有人品嚐。Pinakatt 說：「是的，AI 會越來越多地參與釀酒過程，但釀酒的核心仍然是工藝與手藝。要完全靠機器來釀酒，是非常困難的。」 -- Hosting provided by SoundOn

Erotic writing is becoming more explicit Gardening metaphors are out. Other things are very much in Feb 27th 2025 START WITH the nipples. The lover does in “Mistress and Mother”, a steamy romantic novel from the 1990s. Though, since it was written three decades ago, they are not always called “nipples”. Instead, the author also discreetly describes them as “little buds”. Other erotica from this era has a similarly hearty, horticultural air: in another novel, the paramour enjoys his lover’s “rosebuds”; in a third, he moves lower to her enfolding “petals”. In other books there is swelling, blooming and, of course, “seed”. The aim is oblique eroticism. The overall effect is of an unexpectedly energetic gardening catalogue. But eroticism is changing. Open “Onyx Storm”, the latest romantasy book (a genre that blends romance and fantasy) by Rebecca Yarros, and things are rather clearer. Hardy perennials are out. Words like “hard” are in—as too are words including “cock”, “fuck” and “straddle”. And people are buying it. Sales of erotica are booming: thanks to pre-orders, “Onyx Storm” had already been on Amazon’s bestseller list for 19 weeks by the time it was published in January. After release, it shifted almost 3m copies in a week. It sold faster than any novel in America in the past 20 years. There is now a vast variety of erotica available, including cosy erotica (knitwear is torn off), Austen erotica (Mr Darcy has assets even more impressive than £10,000 a year) and fairy erotica. There is even erotica featuring—readers may wish to brace themselves—physicists. These titles contain such explicit lines as, “Your dissertation on liquid crystals’ static distortions in biaxial nematics was brilliant, Elsie.” Sex is not entirely novel for the novel, as readers of E.L. James and Alan Hollinghurst will know. But it is more frank and frequent. “The spiciness seems to be increasing,” says James Daunt, chief executive of Barnes & Noble and Waterstones, two bookshop chains. Look at the corpus of English fiction and the word “nipples” has doubled in frequency since the year 2000, while “orgasm” has quintupled; use of the word “clit” is 14 times higher. In some ways this is unexpected. It was once assumed that erotica was a male pursuit and that its appeal was not merely the sex but the sin. Obscenity was legally defined in Britain in 1868 by a judge called—in a detail no novelist would dare attempt—Justice Cockburn. “Nine-tenths of the appeal of pornography”, wrote Bertrand Russell, a philosopher, “is due to the indecent feelings concerning sex which moralists inculcate in the young.” Obscenity laws were relaxed in Britain in the 1960s in the wake of the “Lady Chatterley’s Lover” trial, but the illicit thrill remained. The world has changed since then. The moralists have faded. Whatever hold the patriarchy had on publishing has waned. Yet the sex remains, and it is women who are driving it. Most of these books are being written, edited and published by women. They are bought, in vast numbers, by women. The novels are promoted by women on social-media platforms, particularly TikTok, using hashtags such as #Spicybooks and #Steamyreads, then appear on Amazon with the phrase “TikTok made me buy it!”, which sounds less like an endorsement than a defence. As the interest in #Darkromance shows, this sex is not all nice. In Ms Yarros’s books, the hero pins the heroine violently to the floor in wrestling matches; in the romantasy novels of Sarah J. Maas, who has sold almost 40m copies, faeries do things that would make Tinker Bell blush. What has driven this is new digital formats, such as audiobooks. (Ms Yarros and Ms Maas dominate those charts, too.) The e-book has been especially consequential. It is discreet—no one can see what you are reading on a tablet. And it lets authors self-publish cheaply, as Ms James did in 2011 with “Fifty Shades of Grey”, a story of sadomasochism. It was later republished by Vintage, but romance lovers retained the habit of reading books digitally. Authorial autonomy online means it is “impossible to police” what goes into books, says Hal Gladfelder of the University of Manchester. The ubiquity of internet pornography means that even to try to do so would feel “ridiculous”. In one sense this new generation of erotic prose is more realistic than what came before. Floral analogies are out; proper body parts are in. But in another sense, it is not remotely realistic. Everyone is gorgeous; names like “Xaden” and “Aetos” dominate; most characters have remarkable powers, if not superpowers. In Ms Yarros’s books, the hero and heroine, who are long-term lovers, can creep into each other’s minds, where they find each other thinking hot thoughts in an italic font, such as “How do you want me to take you?” and “You’re astounding” rather than, as might be the fear, “Did I switch the tumble dryer on?” or “It was definitely your turn to take the bins out.” It is easy to smirk, but writing about sex is tricky—as a trawl through the back catalogue of the Bad Sex in Fiction Awards shows. The now-defunct prize, which ended during the pandemic, was set up in 1993 by Britain’s Literary Review to “highlight and gently discourage redundant, poorly written or unnecessarily pornographic descriptions of sex in fiction”. Given that the contenders in its final years included such phrases as she “offer[ed] her moist parts to my triumphant phallus” and her vagina was “slowly chugging my organ as a boa constrictor swallows its prey”, perhaps the discouragement was too gentle. Part of the difficulty in writing about sex is what Julian Barnes, an English writer, called “the naming of parts”: “At the basic level, he put his what into her—or indeed his—what?” “Boa constrictor” is probably best avoided, but, as Mr Barnes observed, almost all terms are tricky. “Where between the Latinate and the Anglo-Saxon do you pitch it?” Being biological can be as bad as being too oblique, as a contender for the Bad Sex award in 2019 clearly showed. “I have 8,000 nerves in my clitoris,” explained one character. “Your penis gets by on 4,000.” (Such a pronouncement would leave most lovers unsure whether to take notes or take flight.) At times characters seem to be enjoying sex as little as the reader. In a nominated work of 2019 a character, in a moment of high passion, “screamed as though [she] were being run over by a train”. The reader can only sympathise. Most winners of the prize were, unsurprisingly, men: the male gaze does not always improve male prose. But the internet is changing the balance of power in fictional sex, just as it has in actual sex. Male misbehaviour is called out by such things as the “menwritingwomen” Reddit thread. (John Updike—the “penis with a thesaurus”—features heavily.) A popular parody pokes fun at a man writing a woman’s morning: “Cassandra…breasted boobily to the stairs, and titted downwards.” Eroticism always “reflects what is going on in society at the time”, says Sharon Kendrick, a popular British romantic author. In the liberal 1970s, literary lotharios were in fashion. The arrival of the AIDs pandemic in the 1980s brought on a period of “sexual fastidiousness” and heroes who had one true love and a condom. The new generation of erotic prose may be easy to mock. But it is reflecting a society in which women can often get precisely what they want. That should give any feminist a bit of a thrill. ■ 情色寫作變得更加直白 園藝隱喻退場，露骨詞彙登場 從乳頭開始。至少在《情婦與母親》這本1990年代的火辣愛情小說中，戀人是這樣的。不過，三十年前的作品裡，它們不一定被稱為「乳頭」，作者還會含蓄地稱之為「小花苞」。 那個年代的情色作品普遍有著濃厚的「園藝風格」：另一部小說裡，情人讚嘆伴侶的「玫瑰花蕾」；在第三部作品中，他往下移動，探索她環抱的「花瓣」。書中不乏「膨脹」「綻放」，甚至「種子」的意象。當時追求的是含蓄的情慾，整體讀來更像一本精力充沛的園藝型錄。 如今情色風格已然轉變。打開麗貝卡．亞羅斯（Rebecca Yarros）的最新浪漫奇幻小說《縱橫風暴》（Onyx Storm），場景截然不同。多年生植物退場，取而代之的是「硬」這樣的直白字眼——以及「屌」「幹」「跨坐」等詞彙。讀者也買單。情色文學銷量正大幅成長：靠著預購，《縱橫風暴》在1月出版前已連續19週位居亞馬遜暢銷榜。出版後一週內就賣出近300萬冊，成為過去20年美國銷售速度最快的小說。 現在市面上情色作品種類繁多，包括「溫馨型情色」（毛衣被撕裂）、「奧斯汀風情色」（達西先生的資產不僅僅是一年一萬英鎊）以及「精靈情色」。甚至還有主角是物理學家的作品，其中出現這樣火熱的句子：「你那篇關於液晶雙軸靜態扭曲的論文真是太出色了，艾爾希。」 性在小說中並非全新元素，EL．詹姆斯（E. L. James）與艾倫．霍林赫斯特（Alan Hollinghurst）的讀者早就知道。但現在它更直接、更頻繁。Barnes & Noble 與 Waterstones 兩大連鎖書店的執行長詹姆斯．道恩特（James Daunt）說：「辣度似乎在提升。」英語小說語料庫顯示，自2000年以來，「nipple（乳頭）」的使用頻率翻倍，「orgasm（高潮）」增加五倍，「clit（陰蒂）」更是高出14倍。 某種程度上，這樣的轉變出乎意料。過去人們認為情色主要是男性的嗜好，其吸引力來自於「性」與「禁忌」。1868年英國對「猥褻」的法律定義，由一位名叫——小說家恐怕不敢編造——寇克本（Cockburn）的大法官所作出。哲學家羅素曾寫道：「色情吸引力的九成，源於道德家在年輕人心中灌輸的猥褻情緒。」英國的猥褻法在1960年代《查泰萊夫人的情人》審判後逐漸鬆動，但禁忌帶來的刺激仍然存在。 而今世代不同了。道德家退場，父權在出版界的掌控力也減弱。然而性仍在，只是推動它的已是女性。這些作品大多由女性撰寫、編輯與出版，也被女性大量購買。社群媒體上，特別是在TikTok，女性讀者以 #Spicybooks 與 #Steamyreads 等標籤推廣，最後在亞馬遜出現「TikTok讓我買的！」的字樣——聽起來更像是一種辯解，而非背書。 不過，這些作品的性愛並非總是溫柔。#Darkromance 的流行便是一例。亞羅斯的小說裡，男主角會在角力中將女主角猛然壓倒在地；莎拉．J．馬斯（Sarah J. Maas）的浪漫奇幻小說裡，精靈的行徑足以讓小叮噹(奇妙仙子)臉紅。 推動這股浪潮的，是新的數位載體，例如有聲書（亞羅斯與馬斯在榜上同樣稱霸）。電子書尤其關鍵：它能保有隱私——沒人能看出你在平板上讀什麼；它也讓作者能以低成本自費出版，正如2011年E. L.詹姆斯的《格雷的五十道陰影》，後來雖由Vintage再版，但浪漫讀者已經習慣於數位閱讀。 曼徹斯特大學的哈爾．格拉德費爾德（Hal Gladfelder）指出，網路讓作者完全自主，因此「幾乎不可能審查」。在網路色情遍布的今天，即使想管制也顯得「荒謬」。 某種程度上，這一代的情色小說比過去更「寫實」：花卉隱喻消失，身體部位直接點名。但另一方面，它又一點也不寫實。角色人人俊美，名字不是「薩登」（Xaden）就是「艾托斯」（Aetos），多數還擁有非凡甚至超能力。亞羅斯筆下的情侶甚至能進入彼此的心靈，讀到對方用斜體字傳遞的火熱心思，例如「你想要我怎麼要你？」或「你太驚人了」，而不是「我有把烘衣機關掉嗎？」或「今天明明是你該倒垃圾吧？」 固然容易譏諷，但性愛描寫確實困難。《壞性描寫獎》（Bad Sex in Fiction Award）的歷年入圍作證明了這點。該獎於1993年由《英國文學評論》創立，目的是「提醒並溫和地勸阻多餘、拙劣或過度色情的性描寫」。不過，最後幾年的參賽句子像是「她將濕潤的部位奉獻給我勝利的陽具」或「她的陰道像蟒蛇吞食獵物般，慢慢啃食我的器官」，恐怕勸阻力道還不夠。 英國作家朱利安．巴恩斯（Julian Barnes）曾指出，寫性愛最大的困難在於「命名部位」：「最基本的層面就是，他把他的什麼放進了她——或他的——什麼？」「蟒蛇」的比喻或許最好避免，但正如他所說，幾乎所有詞彙都帶有難題——要在拉丁學術語與盎格魯粗俗語之間找到平衡並不容易。 過於生物學化同樣尷尬。2019年某部入圍作品中，角色竟在高潮時宣稱：「我的陰蒂有八千條神經，你的陰莖只有四千。」（這樣的話恐怕會讓伴侶不知該做筆記還是落荒而逃。）另一位角色則在激情時刻「尖叫得像被火車輾過」，讓讀者不禁同情。 這個獎項多數得主毫不意外地都是男性：男性凝視並不總能讓文字更好。而網路正在改變情色書寫中的權力分配，就像在真實性別關係中一樣。男性的失誤經常被公開嘲諷，例如 Reddit 的「menwritingwomen」版面（常客包括「拿著字典的陽具」約翰．厄普代克）。還有人戲仿男性筆下的女性日常：「卡珊卓……胸部晃動地走下樓梯，並一路抖動著往下走。」 英國暢銷愛情作家莎朗．肯德里克（Sharon Kendrick）說，情色書寫一向「反映當下社會氛圍」。在自由奔放的1970年代，浪子角色當道；1980年代愛滋疫情帶來「性謹慎」時代，小說英雄變成只有一位真愛、而且會戴保險套。 新一代情色小說或許容易被取笑，但它反映的，正是一個女性常能獲得她們真正渴望的社會。這對任何一位女權主義者而言，應該都能帶來一絲快意。 -- Hosting provided by SoundOn

China | For good or ill Hong Kong is super superstitious Why** prophetic artists** and feng-shui masters hold such sway Aug 14th 2025|Hong Kong|3 min read TATSUKI RYO is the finest diviner since Nostradamus, in the view of many Hong Kongers. In 1999 the Japanese manga artist published a collection of supposedly prophetic dreams warning of a “great disaster, year 2011, month 3.” In March 2011 Japan suffered from an earthquake, tsunami and the Fukushima nuclear meltdown; perhaps 18,000 people died. So when her manga predicted that a mega-tsunami would strike Japan on July 5th 2025, it caused alarm. Luckily, like her 16th-century antecedent (who thought the world would end in 2012), Ms Tatsuki often gets things wrong. She thought Mount Fuji would erupt in August 2021. And July 5th came and went. But on July 30th there was a magnitude 8.8 earthquake off Russia’s eastern coast, which prompted tsunami warnings around the Pacific. Fortunately no one died and the tallest tsunami waves to reach Japanese shores were only 1.3m high. (In 2011 they reached almost 40m.) Yet fans and anxious theorists saw the event on July 30th as another confirmation of her powers. The prophecy sent tremors of fear across Asian social media in June. But Hong Kongers took it particularly seriously. Several prominent feng-shui masters, experts in ancient Chinese geomancy, warned locals to heed Ms Tatsuki’s advice not to visit Japan ahead of July 5th. The number of Hong Kongers who did so plunged by more than a third in June compared with a year earlier, while visitor numbers from almost all other places rose. Local carriers, such as Hong Kong Airlines, suspended flight routes to Japan because of the drop in demand. Japan will sting from all this. Though only home to 7.5m people, Hong Kong was the fifth-largest source of international visitors to Japan last year and its holidaymakers spent HK$33bn ($4bn) there. Even hard-nosed types stayed away. One Hong Kong-based financial consultant reports that his boss has refused to take in-person meetings in Japan all summer; she made him attend them in her stead. This is all a reminder of how pervasive superstition is in Hong Kong, even compared with the rest of Asia. Tower blocks frequently skip all floors with the number “four” because its Cantonese pronunciation is similar to the word for “death”. Properties thought to be inhabited by ghosts lose a fifth of their value on average, according to a paper in 2020 by Utpal Bhattacharya of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. And feng shui guides the design of even the most sober organisations’ offices. HSBC’s headquarters has escalators reportedly angled to ward off evil spirits. The Economist’s offices contain old coins for prosperity and a dragon image for good luck, left by a visiting feng-shui master in recent years. There is little harm in any of this. But superstition shouldn’t supersede science. The Hong Kong Observatory, a public body, was forced to release numerous statements in recent months reminding locals that it is impossible to predict an earthquake. Seismologists and disaster experts also weighed in. Even Ms Tatsuki cautioned her fans to heed scientific advice. But their urgings did little to quell the disquiet. Something similar happened during the SARS outbreak in 2003: many Hong Kongers spurned official disease-prevention steps, instead turning to herbs to **ward off **the virus. You don’t need to be a soothsayer to see that sometimes superstition can have rather frightening consequences. ■ 香港極度迷信 為何預言藝術家與風水師能掌握如此大的影響力 2025年8月14日 | 香港 | 閱讀時間 3 分鐘 在許多香港人眼中，**龍樹徹（Tatsuki Ryo）**堪稱繼諾查丹瑪斯之後最優秀的預言家。1999年，這位日本漫畫家出版了一本收錄所謂「預知夢」的漫畫集，當中警告「2011年3月將有大災難」。果然在2011年3月，日本遭遇大地震、海嘯與福島核災，或許多達1.8萬人喪生。因此，當她的漫畫預言「2025年7月5日將有超級海嘯襲擊日本」時，引發了極大的恐慌。 幸運的是，和16世紀的前輩（他曾斷言世界將在2012年終結）一樣，龍樹女士的預言往往錯誤百出。她認為富士山會在2021年8月噴發，但並未成真。而7月5日也平安無事。不過在7月30日，俄羅斯遠東海域發生規模8.8的強震，並一度引發太平洋沿岸的海嘯警報。幸好並無人員傷亡，日本沿岸最高的海嘯浪高僅1.3公尺（2011年時則接近40公尺）。然而，許多粉絲與焦慮的論者仍將7月30日的事件視為她「靈驗」的又一證據。 這項預言早在6月便在亞洲社群媒體掀起恐慌，香港人尤其當真。幾位著名的風水師——古老中國堪輿學的專家——警告大眾要遵循龍樹女士的建議，不要在7月5日前往日本。結果，6月香港赴日人數較去年同期銳減逾三分之一，而幾乎所有其他國家的訪日人數卻上升。由於需求驟降，香港航空等當地航空公司被迫暫停部分日本航線。 對日本而言，這無疑是一大打擊。雖然香港僅有750萬人口，但去年卻是日本第五大國際旅客來源地，港人旅日消費達330億港元（約40億美元）。就連精於算計的專業人士也不例外。一名在港的金融顧問透露，他的上司整個夏天都拒絕赴日開會，最後只能派他代為出席。 這再一次提醒世人，香港的迷信氛圍之濃厚，即便與亞洲其他地方相比亦不遑多讓。許多大樓乾脆跳過所有帶有「四」的樓層，因為「四」的廣東話發音近似「死」。據香港科技大學的巴塔查里亞（Utpal Bhattacharya）2020年的研究，傳聞鬧鬼的房產平均會跌價兩成。就連最嚴肅的機構辦公室設計也遵循風水之道。滙豐銀行總部的自動扶梯據說是以特殊角度安裝，用以驅邪避煞。《經濟學人》的香港辦公室內則留有幾枚古錢幣與一幅龍圖騰，據說是近年一位風水師來訪時留下的吉祥佈局。 這些做法大致無傷大雅。但迷信卻不該凌駕科學。近月來，香港天文台不得不多次發表聲明，提醒市民地震無法預測。地震學家與防災專家也紛紛表態。甚至龍樹本人也勸告粉絲要聽從科學建議。 然而，這些呼籲對平息不安收效甚微。2003年SARS爆發時，情況亦曾類似：許多香港人不遵循官方防疫措施，反而轉向草藥以求避疫。不需要做預言家也能看出，迷信有時會帶來相當可怕的後果。■ -- Hosting provided by SoundOn

**“Comrade” **is making a comeback in China Or so the government hopes Jul 24th 2025|Beijing DURING THE decades when Mao Zedong ruled China, it was common for people to address each other as tongzhi: “comrade”. Like its English equivalent, the word has an egalitarian ring, as well as a hint of revolutionary fervour. But after Mao’s death in 1976, and the market reforms that followed, the term tongzhi started to feel a little dated. Less** ideological** greetings took its place: like xiansheng (“mister”), meinu (“beautiful woman”) and laoban (“boss”). So** it caused a stir **when the People’s Daily, a Communist Party mouthpiece, published an opinion piece this month calling for the word tongzhi to return to everyday speech. Modern greetings can sound frivolous or phoney, the author complained. Some are even “sugar-coated bullets”, they warned, using a Maoist term for bourgeois customs that *corrupt* the working class. Better, then, to return to the greeting used “back when people were simple and honest”. The party often tries to stoke nostalgia for the days of high socialism in order to bolster its support. In recent years local governments have encouraged “red tourism” at sites like Mao’s hometown to teach people about the history of the party (needless to say, they are given a version without all the bloodshed). Some firms send employees on “red” teambuilding courses where they dress up as **guerillas **from the 1930s and trek along muddy mountain paths. In 2015 party members, though not the general public, were told to call each other tongzhi again as a way of “purifying” political culture. The term seems unlikely to make a comeback outside the party, however. For one thing, since the 1990s tongzhi has become a popular slang term for gay people, catching on because it sounded neither pejorative nor clinical, unlike most of the alternatives. For a time one of China’s biggest LGBT-rights organisations, based in the capital, was known as the “Beijing tongzhi Centre” (it closed in 2023 under political pressure). But many people have criticised the idea for another reason. Since the death of Mao, China has become far richer—but the wealth has not been spread evenly. The country’s Gini coefficient , a common measure of** income inequality,** rose sharply in the 1990s and is now higher than that of America, according to official estimates. Inequalities have particularly started to sting as the economy has sputtered. “Who should you call tongzhi?” asked one person in a post on Weibo, a social-media platform. “Someone with the same rights, assets…work and salary. Those earning 2,000 yuan ($280) a month can hardly call those earning 20,000 yuan their tongzhi.” There is little sense of camaraderie between China’s haves and have-nots. ■ 「同志」在中國重現風潮？ ** 政府寄望重新流行** ** 2025年7月24日｜北京** **在毛澤東主政的數十年間，中國人彼此之間常以「同志」相稱。這個詞彙與英文 **comrade 相似，既帶有平等意味，也蘊含革命熱情。然而， 1976年毛澤東逝世、隨後市場改革推行後，「同志」逐漸顯得過時，取而代之的是更少意識形態色彩的稱呼，例如「先生」、「美女」與「老闆」。 因此，當中共喉舌《人民日報》本月發表評論文章，呼籲讓「同志」回歸日常用語時，引起了社會關注。文章批評現代稱呼顯得輕浮甚至虛假，部分更是「糖衣炮彈」——這一毛澤東時期的用語指資產階級風俗對工人階級的腐蝕。評論認為，應回到「人們樸實誠懇的年代」的稱呼方式。 中共時常試圖喚起對高社會主義時代的懷舊情緒，以鞏固支持。近年地方政府推廣「紅色旅遊」，引導民眾參觀毛澤東故鄉等景點，學習黨史（當然，版本中略去血腥部分）。部分企業也會安排員工參加「紅色」團建活動，換上上世紀三○年代游擊隊裝束，踏上泥濘山道。2015年，黨員（但非公眾）曾被要求恢復以「同志」相稱，以「純化」政治文化。 然而，「同志」重回大眾語境的可能性似乎不大。其一，自1990年代起，「同志」在中國成為同志族群的流行稱謂，因為它既不帶貶義，也不似其他詞語般生硬。一度，中國最大之一的同志權益組織——「北京同志中心」便以此為名（該中心於2023年在政治壓力下關閉）。 此外，更多人批評的原因在於現今社會的巨大貧富差距。毛澤東去世後，中國雖然更加富裕，但財富分配並不均衡。中國的吉尼係數 (收入平等的指數) 在1990年代急劇上升，目前官方估計高於美國；相比之下，。隨著經濟放緩，不平等感尤為強烈。有人在社交媒體微博上發文質疑：「你要叫誰同志？權利、資產、工作和薪水都一樣的人嗎？月薪2000元的人，怎麼能叫月薪2萬元的人同志？」如今，中國的貧富兩端之間，已難再找到真正的同志情誼。 ■ -> 小分享 男性廢退：失落、孤僻、漫無目的，生而為「男」我很抱歉？苦苦掙扎的男性困境，我們能怎麼做。 Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male Is Struggling, Why It Matters, and What to Do about It -- Hosting provided by SoundOn

Science & technology | Well informed Do** probiotics** work? For a healthy microbiome, eating your greens is a surer bet Jul 18th 2025|3 min read A DAZZLING menagerie of microbes live inside the human gut—by some counts a few thousand different species. Most residents of this gut microbiome are not the disease-causing kind. In fact, many do useful jobs, such as breaking down certain carbohydrates, fibres and proteins that the human body would otherwise struggle to digest. Some even produce essential compounds the body cannot make on its own, like B vitamins and short-chain fatty acids, which help regulate inflammation, influence the immune system and affect metabolism. As awareness of the microbiome has grown, the shelves of health-food shops have become stocked with products designed to boost good bacteria. These usually fall into two categories: probiotics, capsules containing live (but freeze-dried) bacteria that, in theory, spring back to life once inside your gut; and prebiotics, pills made of fibres that beneficial bacteria feed on. There may be good scientific reasons to tend one’s microbiome. Having a diverse array of gut bugs, with plenty of the good kind, seems to confer broad health benefits. A varied microbial population can fend off pathogens by competing with them for nutrients and space. Reduced diversity, by contrast, has been linked to obesity, type-2 **diabetes *and* irritable bowel syndrome (IBS)**. Evidence for causal links is growing: randomised-controlled trials have shown that tweaking the microbiome can accelerate weight loss, reverse insulin resistance and improve IBS symptoms. The microbiome’s influence may stretch well beyond the gut. Microbes seem to be important for mood: people with depression have less microbial variety in their guts than those without do, for example. One study from 2016, published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research, even found that transplanting the microbiome of a depressed person into a rat caused the animal to display behaviour characteristic of depression. An off-kilter microbiome has also been linked to respiratory infections: mice with fewer gut microbes are more likely to catch pneumonia or influenza. For a diverse microbiome, diet matters. Microbes thrive on foods rich in fibre and digestion-resistant starch, so munching on fresh fruit, vegetables, legumes and nuts is a good place to start. Fermented foods and drinks, such as yogurt, sauerkraut and kombucha, also contain friendly micro-organisms like Lactobacillus. Avoiding unnecessary antibiotics is important, as they wipe out good bacteria along with the bad. Supplements seem equally appealing, but because they are not regulated as medicines, many have not been rigorously tested. “It is absolute cowboy territory in terms of marketing”, says Ted Dinan, a psychiatrist at University College Cork who studies the influence of the microbiome on mental health. Fortunately for consumers based in America, Britain and Canada, academics in those countries have developed apps (each called The Probiotic Guide) that can be used to search for probiotic products and check what scientific evidence, if any, backs them up. Nothing so comprehensive exists for prebiotics, as yet. Taking the wrong product may not do much good, but it probably won’t do much harm either. “You really cannot overdose on probiotics,” says Glenn Gibson, a microbiologist at the University of Reading. Taking too many prebiotics, however, could temporarily disrupt the microbiome. The likely side-effect? “Gas,” he says. “But that’s more just antisocial than anything else.”■ 科學與科技｜資訊豐富 益生菌真的有效嗎？ 若想擁有健康的腸道菌叢，多吃蔬菜才是更穩妥的方法 2025年7月18日｜閱讀時間約3分鐘 人類腸道內住著絢麗多樣的微生物群——據說有數千種不同的物種。大多數腸道微生物並不會引發疾病。事實上，許多微生物對人體有益，例如分解某些碳水化合物、纖維與蛋白質，這些是人體本身較難消化的食物。有些微生物甚至能合成人體無法自行製造的必要化合物，如B群維生素與短鏈脂肪酸，這些物質有助於調節發炎反應、影響免疫系統以及新陳代謝。 隨著大眾對腸道菌叢的認識日益增加，健康食品商店的貨架上也擺滿了旨在促進好菌生長的產品。這些產品主要分為兩類：益生菌——含有活性（但經冷凍乾燥處理）細菌的膠囊，理論上可在進入腸道後復活；以及益生元——由纖維製成的膠囊，提供益菌生長所需的營養來源。 從科學角度來看，照護腸道菌叢確實有其益處。擁有種類多樣的腸道菌群，尤其是大量的有益菌，似乎能帶來整體健康的好處。多樣化的微生物群可透過與病原菌競爭營養與空間來抑制其生長。相反地，腸道菌叢缺乏多樣性則與肥胖、第二型糖尿病以及腸躁症（IBS）相關。這些關聯的因果證據也日益充足：隨機對照試驗顯示，調整腸道菌群可加快體重減輕、逆轉胰島素阻抗，並改善腸躁症症狀。 腸道菌群的影響可能遠超出腸道本身。研究指出微生物對情緒也具有關鍵作用：例如，患有憂鬱症的人，其腸道內的微生物多樣性通常低於未罹病者。一項2016年刊登於《精神病學研究期刊》的研究甚至發現，將一位憂鬱症患者的腸道菌叢移植至老鼠體內，會導致該老鼠出現類似憂鬱的行為反應。失衡的腸道菌叢也與呼吸道感染相關：腸道微生物較少的老鼠更容易感染肺炎或流感。 若想擁有多樣的腸道菌群，飲食至關重要。微生物偏好富含纖維與抗性澱粉的食物，因此多攝取新鮮水果、蔬菜、豆類與堅果是一個良好的起點。發酵食品與飲品，如優格、德國酸菜與康普茶，也含有益菌如乳酸桿菌。此外，避免不必要的抗生素使用也很重要，因為抗生素不分好壞菌，一併清除。 營養補給品看似同樣吸引人，但由於不像藥品那樣受到嚴格監管，因此許多產品尚未經過嚴謹的科學測試。研究腸道菌叢對心理健康影響的愛爾蘭科克大學精神科醫師泰德·迪南（Ted Dinan）表示：「目前的市場行銷簡直就是狂野西部的無政府狀態。」 所幸，對於美國、英國與加拿大的消費者來說，這些國家的學者已開發出名為《益生菌指南》（The Probiotic Guide）的應用程式，幫助用戶搜尋益生菌產品，並查詢是否有科學證據支持其功效。不過，目前尚無同樣完善的益生元產品指南。 選錯產品可能不會帶來太大好處，但通常也不至於造成嚴重傷害。「你基本上不可能攝取過量的益生菌，」雷丁大學微生物學家格倫·吉布森（Glenn Gibson）說。但若攝取過多益生元，則可能暫時擾亂腸道菌叢。最常見的副作用是什麼？「脹氣排氣，」他說，「但這頂多只是讓他人不太舒服罷了。 -- Hosting provided by SoundOn

Why all Indians are** rule-breakers** Because the state makes it impossible not to be Jul 3rd 2025|4 min read IF YOU HAVE ever relaxed with a cold Kingfisher beer at the end of a long, sweaty day in Mumbai, the party capital of India, you have almost certainly broken the law. Specifically, you violated section 40 of the Bombay Prohibition Act of 1949, under which you must hold a permit to drink booze. A first offence is punishable by a fine of 10,000 rupees ($115) and up to six months in prison. Welcome to India, where everything is against the law. According to Vidhi, a legal think-tank in Delhi, India has 7,305 crimes at the national level, three-quarters of which attract imprisonment. India is hardly alone in overcriminalisation. But even America, not exactly known as soft on crime, had a more modest 5,199 federal crimes at last count in 2019. China imposes the death penalty for 46 crimes. In India the number is 301 (though rarely applied). The central government’s ardour for lawmaking and punishment is infectious. India’s 28 states, which control vast swathes of policy, are no less assiduous in regulating everyday life. The state of Uttarakhand, to pick one, requires couples in live-in relationships to register (and pay a fee) within 30 days of shacking up. Failure to comply attracts a fine and up to three months in prison. What of love lost? The unhappy couple must de-register (and pay another fee). Uttarakhand is particularly energetic but few states pass up the chance to make citizens visit the registrar. Then there are tax rules that make almost everyone cower. Renters paying over a lowish threshold must withhold a proportion of the rent from landlords and deposit it with the state as tax, which can involve obtaining a special tax number and hiring an accountant. Some people must pay income tax four times a year. Penalties for errors or delays are high. In June the authorities increased fines for misreported income or false deductions to “up to 200% of the tax due, 24% annual interest, and even prosecution”. There is no leeway for honest mistakes. Businesses have it worse. Companies that grow beyond even a small size must compulsorily register for a goods-and-services tax, disincentivising expansion. They must register in each state in which they have any activity, even if they have no physical presence there. They must also pay taxes withheld from buyers every month, regardless of whether they have been paid. Big companies have legal and compliance departments. Small ones struggle. A convoluted tax code means it is easy to mess up. Beyond the big-ticket items of crime and tax there exists a third category of rules so baffling it defies labels. Cities build fancy new elevated roads only to set speed limits as low as 30km per hour (18mph). Local authorities brick up entrances to public spaces for “safety reasons”. Airport security confiscates packets of spice mixes but allows packets of noodles that contain packets of spice mixes. It is hard to escape the sense that there is no logic behind the rules. That is because there isn’t, say people who have worked with government. Policy can be made just because an official says “I think it’s a good idea.” To save energy, a central-government minister says air-conditioners should function only between 20°C and 28°C,** boasting of** a “first-of-its-kind experiment”. A minister in Kerala wants to fine people who use their phones while crossing the street. In Goa, a holiday state, a new policy makes it mandatory for beach shacks to serve “freshly cooked Goan cuisine”. The tourism minister stipulates that this means fish curry and rice, though there is no such clause. The usual excuse for India’s surfeit of laws and rules is colonialism’s legacy. Indeed, in 2023 India decriminalised 183 defunct provisions in 42 laws. The government is working on a second rationalisation and setting up a deregulation commission to ease the burden on business. A tax bill is in the works. These are welcome moves. But the deeper problem lies in the attitudes of politicians and bureaucrats. “We think the state must have a say in every aspect of an individual’s life,” says Arghya Sengupta of Vidhi. “Everything is game for legislation.” The outcome is to make Indians less law-abiding, not more. Why follow the rules when everything is verboten? Why start a business or expand a successful one if it will only attract attention and more compliance? One high-ranking official complains that the state sets impossibly high standards and then claims that Indians are lawless. But “You have made it impossible for them to follow the law.” ■ 為什麼印度人都違規？ 因為國家讓人無法不違規 2025年7月3日 如果你曾在孟買──印度的派對之都──結束一整天汗流浹背的日子後，輕鬆地來一瓶冰涼的金飛蛇啤酒，那麼你幾乎可以確定已經違法了。具體來說，你違反了《1949年孟買禁酒法》第40條，根據該法令，飲酒必須持有特別許可證。首次違規可處10,000盧比（約115美元）罰金，甚至可被判處6個月徒刑。 歡迎來到印度——一個萬事皆可能違法的國度。根據德里法律智庫 Vidhi 的統計，印度全國層級的刑事罪行多達7,305項，其中四分之三可處以監禁。印度並非唯一法律過度氾濫的國家；但即使是對犯罪向來強硬的美國，2019年統計時聯邦刑事罪也只有5,199項。中國對46種罪行處以死刑，而印度的數字是301項（雖然極少執行）。 聯邦政府對立法與懲罰的熱情，已傳染至地方。印度的28個邦也熱衷於干預日常生活。舉例來說，北阿坎德邦規定同居情侶必須在30天內登記並繳交費用，否則將面臨罰款與最高三個月的徒刑。若情變分手，還需重新登記取消，並再次繳費。雖說北阿坎德的作法格外積極，但其他邦也幾乎不放過任何一次讓人民跑一趟登記處的機會。 然後是令人膽寒的稅務規定。租金超過一定門檻的房客必須預扣部分租金作為稅金代繳給政府，這往往涉及申請特殊稅號，甚至需聘請會計師。有些人一年必須報繳四次所得稅。錯誤或延誤的罰金極高。今年6月，當局更提高了錯報收入或虛報扣除的罰則：罰金最高為應繳稅額的200%、年息24%，甚至可能遭起訴。誠實錯誤亦無從通融。 企業的處境更為艱難。公司一旦規模稍有擴張，便強制要求登記營業稅（GST），反而成為擴張的阻力。此外，只要企業在某個邦有業務行為（即使沒有實體據點），就必須向該邦登記並繳稅。即使尚未收款，也要預繳從買家那邊預扣的稅金。大公司尚有法務與稽核部門處理，小公司則苦不堪言。複雜的稅制也讓出錯變得再容易不過。 除了刑事與稅務這類重大事項外，還有一類荒謬至極、難以歸類的規定。城市建好高架道路，卻將限速設為30公里／小時。地方政府為了「安全」封磚公園出入口。機場安檢沒收香料包，卻放行內含香料的泡麵包。這些規則彷彿毫無邏輯。 事實上，這正是問題所在。與政府合作過的人坦言，政策常常是官員一句「我覺得這是個好主意」就拍板定案。例如中央部長為了節能，宣稱冷氣溫度應限定在20°C到28°C之間，還說這是「全球首創實驗」。喀拉拉邦的部長建議，行人過馬路時若滑手機應處罰。在渡假勝地果阿邦，新規定則強制海灘小吃店必須供應「現煮的果阿料理」，觀光部長進一步定義為「魚咖哩與米飯」，但法條中卻未明文規定。 這一切的常見藉口，是「殖民遺產」。確實，印度於2023年廢除42部法律中的183條過時條文，並正著手進行第二波法規清理，同時設立「去管制委員會」以減輕企業負擔，稅改法案也正在制定中。這些都是正向發展。 然而，根本問題出在官僚與政治人物的思維模式。Vidhi 的阿加雅‧森古塔（Arghya Sengupta）指出：「我們總認為，國家應該參與個人生活的每一個層面，什麼都可以立法。」 這樣的結果不是讓人民更守法，而是更習於違法。當所有事都被禁止，誰還想遵守規則？誰又願意創業或擴張事業，只為招來更多監管？一名高層官員不滿地說，國家設定了高不可攀的標準，卻又責怪印度人無視法律。但真正的問題是：「你讓他們根本無法守法。」 -- Hosting provided by SoundOn

Simon Groot scattered better plant seeds across the world The seedsman from Enkhuizen died on July 6th, aged 90 What started him thinking was a cabbage. Not any old cabbage, but the variety, “Glory of Enkhuizen”, which his family company, Sluis and Groot, had produced in that town in North Holland in 1899. It was a beautiful cabbage, round, compact, with a light-green head framed in darker leaves. It could weigh as much as three kilograms, had a sweet flavour, and was easy to grow, as it did all over Europe. But not here. Simon Groot was walking in the highlands of Java, on a sales trip for the company in 1965, when he came across a field of them. They were a sorry sight, sparse and with misshapen heads. Clearly the seed was not quite right, messed up or mixed in, adulterated somehow; he hated nothing more than bad seed. But it was also clear that these cabbages, which shrugged off frost, did not enjoy a semitropical climate and could not cope with local pests and diseases. Meanwhile the farmers who had sown them, unable to sell them, remained as poor as ever. For 16 years he brooded on this. It became his mission. In 1981, when Sluis and Groot was sold to Sandoz, he branched out on his own to improve the seeds, crops, trade and nutrition of the tropical parts of the world. **The staple grains *(especially wheat in India and rice in China) had been hybridised already, with great success, but lowly vegetables had been ignored. He, by contrast, loved them. Producing fine vegetable and flower seed had been the family business since 1867, when venerable, bearded Groots had* pioneered **the work in Enkhuizen. Seeds had been lucky for the town, too; because of close contacts with local farmers, it did not suffer the famine that followed the war. For him the vegetables of tropical Asia were a cornucopia of species he had never met before. Amaranth, with grain-heads like huge catkins; kangkong, or water spinach, growing in any fresh water; mung beans, full of protein in both seeds and sprouts; daikon, tatsoi, choy sum. All were packed with vitamins and good nutrition. As a seedsman more used to cauliflowers and potatoes, he was fascinated. As a market man, here was a huge chance. He surpassed his own expectations. By the 2020s the seeds produced by his company, East-West Seed, had improved the incomes of 20m small farmers in more than 80 countries, from Asia to Latin America to Africa. The company’s red-arrow logo was as well-known to them as the sign for Coca-Cola. He also set up a programme in which successful farmers trained their neighbours. With better seed, farmers stayed in farming, market traders had more to sell and consumers had healthier diets. That simple formula lifted everyone. Seeds came first, carefully bred by cross-pollination to produce the right traits. But the farmers were key. He talked to them constantly, a tall and almost colonial figure in his white clothes and sun-hat, to learn to think with them. Most of them had plots of only one or two hectares, so vegetables were an ideal crop. Routinely, though, the glossy packets they started with had bad genetics inside. They then saved the seed from their crop from year to year, because they were poor and it cost nothing. So, inevitably, their harvests declined. Yet they were most reluctant to change. When he set up his first base in the Philippines in 1982 and, after many months, produced his first **hybridised **seed, farmers were loth to try it. The plant was ampalaya or bitter gourd, not unlike a fat, warty cucumber, astringent but useful to bulk out a stir-fry; so many farmers already grew it. The new variety was called “Jade Star”. It could resist downy mildew, its chief threat, but almost all the trial crops failed. Hence the importance of any farmer who had succeeded passing on his knowledge of how to handle the seeds, space them, **fertilise and irrigate **them. Seed was all about trust: trust that the tiny speck you sowed would grow into the plant you imagined. Both would take time to appear. Over decades, though, the farmers were won over. When the crops did well, they were extraordinary: healthy, profuse and vigorous. As more vegetables were hybridised, tomatoes began to flourish in the Indonesian lowlands, where they could not grow before; productivity per plant of bird’s eye chili, a Thai favourite, increased by 30-40%, and long beans grew like forests. Farm incomes doubled and sometimes even tripled. Certain cases became famous. One woman did so well with chai sim, a leaf vegetable, that she built a kitchen and bought a motorbike. Another produced a pile of pumpkins worth $3,500 from $6-worth of seed. Hybridisation meant that seed from the crop could not be kept, because the second crop would be unreliable. But he set the price of new seed as low as he could. In 2017 the company sold 24m “value-packs”, enough for a small plot, for the equivalent of a dollar each. Any profits went to growth and research. The farmers seemed to take this system in their stride. When he visited them in later years they cheered for joy and held parties for him. In 2019 he was awarded the World Food Prize, a nutritional equivalent of the Nobel. His work, however, was far from done. In Asia he still hoped to shift more farmers away from rice; the world had plenty of that, and carbohydrates, as well as meat, were starting to feature too much in Asian diets. Plants needed constant fortifying to adapt to climate change. And he had barely made a start on Africa, where small farmers were struggling terribly and the potential for growth was so obvious. In one of his late interviews he appeared with an array of home-grown vegetables in front of him. His tomatoes and French beans, laid out on a dark-wood table, looked as glossy and beautiful as a still life from the Dutch Golden Age. The vegetable he most often chose to pose with, however, was not the “Glory of Enkhuizen”. It was the warty, bitter, ugly “Jade Star”, which had transformed the lives of his farmer-friends 6,000 miles away. ■ 西蒙・格魯特將更優良的種子撒播至全球各地 來自恩克赫伊曾（Enkhuizen）的種子商於7月6日辭世，享壽90歲。 讓他開始思考的，是一顆高麗菜。不是普通的高麗菜，而是「恩克赫伊曾的榮耀」（Glory of Enkhuizen）這個品種，早在1899年，他的家族公司 Sluis and Groot 就在荷蘭北部的這座小鎮育出這種高麗菜。這是一種漂亮的高麗菜，圓潤緊實，淺綠色的菜心外圍包著深綠色葉片。重量可達三公斤，味道甘甜，容易種植，在歐洲各地都表現良好。 但在這裡卻不行。1965年，西蒙・格魯特在爪哇高地為公司出差推銷種子時，發現一片種滿這種高麗菜的田地。這些菜看起來慘兮兮，稀疏又畸形。很明顯，種子有問題，可能是品質不佳、混雜或遭到摻假；而他最痛恨的，正是壞種子。更重要的是，這種耐霜的高麗菜根本不適合在亞熱帶氣候中生長，也無法抵禦當地的病蟲害。種下它們的農民無法出售這些作物，仍一貧如洗。 他為此苦思了16年，最終這成了他的使命。1981年，Sluis and Groot 被賣給了瑞士的山多士公司（Sandoz），他決定自行創業，致力於改善熱帶地區的種子、農作物、貿易與營養狀況。當時主要糧食（特別是印度的小麥與中國的稻米）已透過雜交育種成功改良，但蔬菜這類「不起眼」的作物卻遭到忽視。然而，他恰恰最愛蔬菜。自1867年起，他家族便開始培育優良的蔬菜與花卉種子，那些鬍鬚滿面的格魯特祖先在恩克赫伊曾率先展開這項事業。種子對這座城鎮也是福氣，因為與農民密切合作，它在戰後逃過了飢荒。 對他來說，熱帶亞洲的蔬菜簡直像是裝滿新奇物種的寶庫：像巨大花穗的莧菜、可在淡水中生長的空心菜、種子與芽都富含蛋白質的綠豆、白蘿蔔、塌棵菜與菜心……它們全都營養豐富、含有大量維生素。對這位習慣花椰菜和馬鈴薯的種子商來說，一切都令人著迷。從市場角度來看，這更是個巨大機會。 他甚至超越了自己最初的期望。到了2020年代，他創立的「東西種子公司」（East-West Seed）所生產的種子，已提升了全球80多國、2千萬小農的收入，範圍涵蓋亞洲、拉丁美洲與非洲。公司那個紅箭頭的標誌對他們而言如同可口可樂的標誌般熟悉。他還建立了一套制度，讓成功的農民教導鄰里。種子好，農民就能繼續耕作，市場有更多貨源，消費者也吃得更健康。這簡單的循環讓所有人受益。 種子是根本，透過雜交育種培育出理想性狀。但農民才是關鍵。他常常親自與農民對話，一身白衣、戴著太陽帽，身形高大、神似殖民地官員，只為學著與他們一同思考。他們大多只有一兩公頃的小田地，因此蔬菜是理想作物。然而，開始種植時買的精美包裝裡，常常裝著劣質基因的種子。他們因貧窮而習慣自行留種，年復一年，導致產量不斷下滑。 但他們極不願意改變。1982年，他在菲律賓設立第一個基地，花了好幾個月才培育出第一批雜交種子。當時的作物是「苦瓜」（Ampalaya），一種像疙瘩黃瓜、味道澀卻常用來炒菜的蔬菜；許多農民本來就種它。他的新品種名為「翡翠之星」（Jade Star），可抵抗霜黴病——這是主要威脅——但幾乎所有試驗作物都失敗了。這也凸顯出，成功的農民如何傳授種植技巧（如種子處理、株距、施肥、灌溉）至關重要。種子全憑信任：相信那顆微小的顆粒會長成你心中想像的植株。而這兩者都需要時間培養。 數十年過後，農民終於被說服。當作物成功時，成果驚人：健壯、繁茂又旺盛。隨著越來越多蔬菜被雜交改良，番茄在印尼低地得以生長，這 在以前是不可能的；泰國愛吃的朝天椒單株產量提高三到四成；長豆長得像森林一樣。農民收入翻倍甚至三倍。有些案例成了佳話。有位婦人種菜心賺了足夠的錢蓋廚房、買機車；另一位用6美元的種子種出價值3500美元的南瓜。 雜交種的缺點是：收成後的種子無法再用，第二代品質不穩。但他總是盡可能將種子售價壓低。2017年，公司販售了2400萬包「超值小包裝」種子，足夠種一小塊地，每包只要一美元左右。利潤全投入成長與研發。農民對這制度似乎欣然接受。多年後他回訪時，農民會歡呼迎接，還為他開派對。 2019年，他榮獲「世界糧食獎」，這被視為營養界的諾貝爾獎。但他自認任務遠未完成。在亞洲，他仍希望更多農民轉作非稻米作物——世界上稻米與碳水已過剩，亞洲飲食中碳水與肉類佔比過高。他還指出，植物需不斷強化，以因應氣候變遷。而在非洲，他才剛起步；那裡的小農情況艱難，但潛力巨大。 在晚年一次受訪時，他面前擺滿自家種的蔬菜。紅蕃茄、四季豆擺在深色木桌上，彷彿一幅荷蘭黃金時代的靜物畫。但他最常與之合影的蔬菜，卻不是那顆「恩克赫伊曾的榮耀」，而是那顆疙疙瘩瘩、苦澀難看、卻改變了6000英里外農民命運的「翡翠之星」。■ -- Hosting provided by SoundOn

United States | Welcome to Trader Zoh’s Should cities run their own supermarkets? New York’s mayoral front-runner thinks so Many a New Yorker dreams of not paying rent. So do New York’s shops; **retail space **there is pricier than anywhere else in America, by a lot. Seldom is this wish granted. But for a select few publicly owned grocery stores, Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for New York City mayor, hopes to do just that. Alongside more typical left-wing fare, like rent controls and free buses, he pitched a more novel idea: a “public option” for groceries in the form of a state-run rival that would undercut existing supermarkets. Food prices have spiralled, Mr Mamdani argues, and New Yorkers shouldn’t “subsidise private grocery-store operators” during their weekly shop. Another problem he flags is that some New Yorkers live in “food deserts”, without ready access to fresh produce (the US Department of Agriculture found that New York had fewer such areas than any other state). The plan is to** pilot **one store in each of the city’s five boroughs, and scale up if those succeed. This is a curious proposal. Grocery stores have among the lowest margins of any business in America: they generally make 1-2% in profit after tax. New York City, with a dense population, aggressive competition and high rental and wage costs, is particularly competitive. Mr Mamdani’s stores would not pay rent or property taxes—he wants to put them on city-owned land. But denying New York’s government the revenue those plots would otherwise have earned amounts to a chunky subsidy. If Mr Mamdani’s stores do manage to offer lower prices than privately run peers, it will be thanks to that implicit subsidy, funded by New Yorkers’ taxes. At best, then, these stores might sell groceries** a smidge more** cheaply than conventional grocers, largely due to back-door taxpayer funding. For a government concerned about affordability for the poorest New Yorkers, indiscriminately part-financing **the grocery haul **of anyone who steps into one of Mr Mamdani’s stores is a curious way to do it. Worse, private supermarkets could get run out of business, because even squeezing their margins to zero wouldn’t be enough to match a competitor that doesn’t pay rent. All this presumes that Mr Mamdani’s stores are run as well as a conventional supermarket or bodega. But from affordable housing to subway extensions, American cities have a sorry record of letting costs spiral. New York has been** trial**ling a new set of *no-frills public toilets*, and budgeted about $1m for each one. Rather than creating a cheap and hyper-efficient city-owned grocery chain, a more plausible outcome is that mismanagement will eat up any savings made from not needing to pay rent or turn a profit. ■ 許多紐約客都夢想著不用付房租。紐約的商店也一樣；那裡的零售空間租金比全美其他地方都高得多。這樣的願望鮮少實現，但民主黨籍紐約市長候選人左赫蘭·曼達尼（Zohran Mamdani）希望能讓少數幾家公營雜貨店例外。除了較典型的左翼政見，如租金管制和免費公車外，他還提出了一個更新穎的構想：推出一種“公營選項”，讓州政府開設超市來與現有的超市競爭並壓低價格。 曼達尼認為，食品價格已經飆漲，而紐約客在每週採買時不該“補貼私人雜貨店業者”。他還指出，部分紐約客居住在“食物荒漠”地區，無法方便取得新鮮農產品（美國農業部的調查發現，紐約州的此類地區比全美其他州都少）。曼達尼的計畫是先在紐約市的五個行政區各試辦一家公營雜貨店，如果成效良好再進一步擴大規模。 這是一個頗為奇特的提案。雜貨店是全美利潤率最低的行業之一：稅後淨利通常僅有 1-2%（見圖表）。紐約市人口稠密、競爭激烈，且租金與人事成本都極高，使得經營環境更加艱困。曼達尼計劃讓這些公營雜貨店免付租金和地產稅——他希望將它們設於市政府擁有的土地上。然而，這等於讓市政府損失原本可以從這些土地獲得的租稅收入，形同提供大筆補貼。若曼達尼的雜貨店真能比私人同業提供更低的價格，這也將歸功於這種隱性補貼，而這筆錢最終由納稅人負擔。 即便如此，這些店家最多也只能因為背後有納稅人資助，而稍微便宜一些。對於一個關心最貧困紐約客生活負擔的政府來說，這種不分對象地部分資助任何走進曼達尼雜貨店的人，實在是個耐人尋味的做法。 更糟的是，私人超市可能會被迫退出市場，因為即便把自身利潤擠壓到零，也無法與一家免付租金的競爭對手匹敵。以上還假設曼達尼的店能像傳統超市或便利商店一樣有效營運。然而從平價住宅到地鐵延伸線，美國城市在控制成本方面的記錄一向不佳。紐約市近來試辦新型簡易公廁，每一座的預算竟高達約 100 萬美元。與其說會誕生一條廉價且高效的市營雜貨連鎖，更可能的結果是，管理不善將吞噬掉省下的租金和利潤。 -- Hosting provided by SoundOn

Can men and women be just friends? The answer matters more than you think Jun 19th 2025|Istanbul and Seoul “Men and women can’t be friends because the sex part always gets in the way,” says Harry in When Harry Met Sally (1989). Decades later, Turkey’s religious authority echoed this sentiment, warning that friendships between men and women lead to adultery. While studies show men in platonic friendships often overestimate women’s attraction to them, it doesn’t mean such friendships are doomed. Most people can control their urges, and cross-sex friendships bring important social benefits. A large study by Meta and NYU analysed 1.8 billion Facebook users, creating a “cross-gender friendship index” (WHMSI). A score of zero means complete gender segregation; one means equal numbers of same- and cross-sex friends. Conservative Muslim societies like Libya and Iraq score just 0.1, while countries in Africa and South America show higher mixing. Western countries average around 0.5-0.6. Interestingly, regions with higher female labour-force participation have more cross-sex friendships. Nigeria, where women work nearly as much as men, scores 0.67; India, with far fewer women working, scores 0.34. Sexual freedom also correlates with cross-sex friendships. In conservative societies, women’s behaviour is seen as tied to family honour, discouraging interaction with men. In Turkey, where few women work outside the home, informal gender segregation persists. This limits women’s career progress and reinforces stereotypes that women are emotional or unreliable. In East Asia, South Korea’s WHMSI score is low. Many men there don’t consider being friends with women, believing their interests are too different. This cultural divide contributes to workplace inequality and even a rise in involuntary celibacy among men. Do cross-sex friendships make people less sexist, or do less sexist cultures produce more of them? Likely both. A German study found that boys with female friends became more egalitarian over time, while girls’ views were unaffected. Encouraging cross-gender friendships early may help. In an experiment called “Buddy Up”, preschoolers paired with opposite-sex classmates later showed more willingness to play together. This supports the idea that positive contact between groups reduces prejudice, whether between ethnicities or genders. Cross-sex friendships, though simple, may be a key step toward real equality. 「男人和女人不能當朋友，因為性總是會介入。」這是1989年電影《當哈利碰上莎莉》中的一句台詞。幾十年後，土耳其宗教機構也發表類似警告，認為男女友誼會導致通姦。研究發現，男性在柏拉圖式友誼中常高估女性對自己的好感，但這並不代表這類友誼注定失敗。大多數人能控制欲望，且異性友誼對社會有重要益處。 Meta和紐約大學分析了18億名Facebook用戶，建立了「跨性別友誼指數」（WHMSI）。分數0表示完全性別隔離，1表示同性與異性朋友數量相等。保守的穆斯林社會如利比亞和伊拉克得分僅0.1，而非洲及南美一些國家異性友誼較常見。西方國家平均約0.5-0.6。有趣的是，女性勞動參與率較高的地區，異性友誼也較多。例如，奈及利亞女性工作比例接近男性，得分0.67；印度女性工作比例低，得分僅0.34。 性自由也與異性友誼有關。在保守社會，女性行為被視為家庭榮譽的象徵，限制了與男性的交往。在土耳其，少數女性能在外工作，非正式性別隔離盛行，阻礙女性職場晉升並加深「女性情緒化、不可靠」的刻板印象。 在東亞，南韓的異性友誼指數很低。許多男性認為男女興趣差異太大，難以成為朋友。這種文化隔閡助長了職場不平等，也讓非自願單身男性增加。 異性友誼是否讓人更不性別歧視，或是較不性別歧視的文化產生更多這類友誼？答案可能是雙向的。德國一項研究發現，與異性朋友相處的男孩，隨時間變得更支持性別平等，而女孩觀點則未受影響。 從小鼓勵異性友誼或許能改善現況。美國一項「Buddy Up」實驗讓學齡前兒童與異性搭檔進行遊戲，數月後，參與實驗的男孩更願意與女孩一起玩耍。這印證了「正向接觸能減少偏見」的理論，無論是族群間還是性別間。 異性友誼看似簡單，卻可能是實現真正平等的重要一步。 -- Hosting provided by SoundOn

Is the “manopause” real? If it is, it is nothing like the menopause HOT FLUSHES; insomnia; joint pains; loss of libido: for many women, the menopause is no fun. Why exactly women become infertile decades before they die is a much-debated mystery in evolutionary biology. Besides humans, the only other mammals whose females experience so early a menopause in the wild seem to be some species of whale. But equal opportunity is the spirit of the age. These days health influencers, supplement companies and even some doctors talk about a male version of the menopause—variously called the “manopause”, “andropause”, or, for acronym-lovers, “ADAM”, which stands for “androgen deficiency in the ageing male”. Symptoms include a flagging libido, tiredness, shrinking muscles and growing body fat. Do men really suffer from menopause, or something like it? On one level, obviously not. Menopause is defined by the end of a woman’s** menstrual periods**, and therefore the loss of her ability to reproduce, usually by her early 50s. Men, by contrast, can stay fertile well into old age. For instance, Al Pacino, an American actor, fathered a child at 83. In menopause, a woman’s levels of the sex hormones oestrogen and progesterone fall sharply and suddenly. In most men levels of testosterone, the main male sex hormone, likewise start falling during middle age. But unlike in women there is no sudden drop. Levels decline gently, at a rate of around 1% a year, and often stay within the normal range for a man’s entire life. Sometimes symptoms that might be ascribed to a manopause may arise from the realities of middle-aged life. Tiredness is a common result of juggling work with family responsibilities. Flabbiness and atrophying muscles are the wages of years of sedentary office work and too little exercise. That being said, some proportion of men do suffer from male hypogonadism, a medical condition in which the testicles do not produce as much testosterone as they should. Estimates of its prevalence vary widely: one review paper, published in 2020, cited one American study of ageing men that estimated 20% of those in their 60s might be sufferers. But a separate European study put the figure for the same age group at just 3.2%. The causes of hypogonadism are not always clear (though obesity seems not to help). But unlike the female menopause, it is not an inevitable consequence of ageing. Menopausal women can be treated with hormone-replacement therapy (HRT). This aims to replace the missing sex hormones, and thus relieve unpleasant symptoms, using tablets or gels. Similarly, a growing number of men take testosterone-replacement therapy (TRT) to the same ends. Prescriptions have boomed in the past 20 years, **though there is not yet a firm consensus **on when men actually need it. Still, testosterone—the original anabolic steroid—really is, in some ways, a fountain of youth. Men taking it will put on muscle, lose fat and recover faster from exercise (hence why taking testosterone is considered doping in most sports). The pros and cons of TRT are a subject for another article. But take care: side-effects can include baldness and, ironically, infertility. Add external testosterone and the body will compensate by making less. Reduced production in the testes can slow or even stop sperm production. By trying to relieve the symptoms of the supposed male menopause, men who take TRT risk replicating the defining feature of the female original. ■ 熱潮紅、失眠、關節疼痛、性慾減退：對許多女性而言，更年期並不好受。 女性為何會在死亡前數十年便喪失生育能力，一直是演化生物學中的一大謎團。除了人類之外，目前已知在野外出現如此早期更年期的哺乳動物，似乎只有某些種類的鯨魚。 然而，「平權」是當今時代的精神。如今，健康意見領袖、保健品公司，甚至一些醫生，開始談論一種男性版的「更年期」——這種現象有各種名稱，如「男性更年期」（manopause）、「雄性更年期」（andropause），或對喜愛縮寫的人而言，稱作「ADAM」，即「老年男性雄激素缺乏症」（Androgen Deficiency in the Ageing Male）。其症狀包括性慾減退、疲倦、肌肉萎縮與體脂增加等。 但男性真的會經歷更年期，或者說類似的情況嗎？ 某種程度上，答案顯然是否定的。更年期是指女性月經的停止，從而失去生育能力，通常發生於50歲出頭。而男性則不同，他們即使進入老年仍能保持生育能力。例如，美國演員艾爾·帕西諾（Al Pacino）在83歲時仍育有一子。 女性在更年期間，雌激素與黃體素等性激素會急遽且迅速地下降。而男性的主要性激素——睪固酮，則多半從中年開始逐年緩慢下降。但與女性不同的是，這種下降沒有劇烈斷崖式的變化，其速率大約每年1%，且通常一生中都仍維持在正常範圍內。 有時，被歸咎為「男性更年期」的症狀，其實可能源自中年生活的現實。工作與家庭責任兩頭燒導致的疲倦極為常見；身體鬆弛與肌肉萎縮則多半是長年久坐辦公、缺乏運動的後果。 儘管如此，的確有部分男性罹患「男性性腺機能低下症」（male hypogonadism），即睪丸無法產生足夠睪固酮的醫學狀況。其盛行率因研究而異。一篇2020年發表的綜合文獻指出，美國一項針對老年男性的研究估計，60多歲男性中約有20%可能患病。但另一項歐洲研究則認為，同齡族群的患病率僅為3.2%。其成因不總是明確（但肥胖似乎無助於改善）。不過，與女性更年期不同，這並非老化過程的必然結果。 女性更年期可透過荷爾蒙補充療法（HRT）進行治療，使用藥丸或凝膠補充缺乏的性激素，以緩解不適症狀。類似地，越來越多男性也選擇接受睪固酮補充療法（TRT）以達成同樣目的。過去20年間，相關處方快速增加，但何時應該開始治療，目前醫界尚未有明確共識。 不過，睪固酮——這種最早的合成代謝類固醇——在某些層面上確實堪稱「青春之泉」。服用睪固酮的男性會增肌、減脂，且運動後恢復得更快（這也是為何在大多數運動項目中，睪固酮被視為禁藥的原因）。至於TRT的利與弊，則是另一篇文章的主題。但必須小心：副作用可能包括禿頭，以及具有諷刺意味的——不孕。因為外源性睪固酮會使身體自我調節，減少睪固酮的自然產量。睪丸內的生成量降低後，可能導致精子產量減少，甚至完全停止。換句話說，為了緩解所謂男性更年期的症狀，服用TRT的男性反而可能重現女性更年期最關鍵的特徵。 -- Hosting provided by SoundOn

1. If China invaded Taiwan, who would enter the war? Japan and the Philippines would struggle to stay out. But what about the rest? At the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, French President Emmanuel Macron raised a key question: What if China launches a major military operation against Taiwan? His cautious stance reflects broader global uncertainty. A report by the Centre for a New American Security (CNAS) warns that if the U.S. stays out of such a conflict, most other countries likely would, too. U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth countered that China would face “devastating consequences” if it attacked Taiwan. But confidence in America's commitment is fading, especially after Donald Trump’s suggestion that Taiwan aid would be negotiable. Some in the Pentagon even doubt Taiwan’s ability to resist. If the U.S. does intervene, Japan and the Philippines would be most directly affected. Japan might limit its role to missile and submarine support. The Philippines, with 175,000 nationals in Taiwan, would be cautious, though tensions in the South China Sea could escalate if China gets bogged down. South Korea, Australia, and India would be under U.S. pressure to help. South Korea would focus on deterring North Korea, offering logistics support at most. Australia, a key U.S. partner, has made no commitment but risks straining ties if it stays out. India would likely remain on the sidelines militarily but assist with intelligence and naval operations. Southeast Asia—home to 900,000 nationals in Taiwan—would mostly try to stay neutral due to trade ties with China, though the U.S. would seek base access in Thailand and Singapore. In Europe, concern is growing. France, Italy, and Britain have deployed naval assets to the region. While direct military support is unlikely, EU-wide sanctions—particularly trade restrictions—could significantly impact China, though such a move remains a difficult political challenge. 1. 如果中國入侵台灣，誰會參戰？ 日本與菲律賓最難置身事外，但其他國家又會怎麼選擇？ 在新加坡舉行的香格里拉對話中，法國總統馬克宏提出了一個關鍵問題：如果中國對台灣發動大規模軍事行動，世界各國會如何反應？他的謹慎態度反映了全球對此情勢的普遍不確定。一份由美國智庫「新美國安全中心」（CNAS）發表的報告警告，如果美國選擇不介入，大多數其他國家也可能選擇袖手旁觀。 美國國防部長皮特‧赫格塞斯反駁稱，中國若動武將面臨「毀滅性後果」。但對美國承諾的信心正在減弱，尤其是在川普曾表示援助台灣需經過「協商」之後。一些五角大廈官員甚至懷疑台灣有能力堅持抵抗。 若美國選擇介入，最直接受影響的將是日本與菲律賓。日本可能僅限於提供飛彈或潛艦支援。擁有17.5萬名國民在台灣的菲律賓將更為謹慎，不過若中國軍隊陷入苦戰，南海的緊張局勢可能升高。 南韓、澳洲與印度也會面臨美國的施壓。南韓將優先關注北韓可能趁機挑釁，頂多提供後勤支援。澳洲雖是美國的重要盟友，卻尚未做出承諾，若選擇不參與，可能損及與美方的關係。印度則多半會專注於中印邊界防禦，但預料會在情報與反潛作戰上提供協助。 東南亞地區約有90萬持護照者在台灣工作與生活，考量與中國的貿易依賴，多數國家可能選擇保持中立；不過，美國可能尋求使用泰國與新加坡的空軍與海軍基地。 至於歐洲方面，對中國可能入侵台灣的擔憂也日益升高。法國、義大利與英國已向亞太地區派遣軍艦。雖然直接軍事支援可能性不高，但歐盟若能統一對中國實施制裁，特別是貿易限制，可能對中國造成重大衝擊，儘管這樣的決定在政治上仍極具挑戰性。 2. Taiwan thinks the unthinkable: **resisting China **without America Its plan was to hold off a Chinese attack until America turned up. What now? Taiwan’s defence strategy has long hinged on surviving a Chinese assault for at least a month—enough time for the U.S. to intervene. But confidence in that rescue is weakening, especially as American political rhetoric grows more uncertain. Donald Trump’s ambivalence on defending Ukraine and previous remarks belittling Taiwan’s chances have rattled nerves on the island. “Strategic ambiguity,” the U.S. policy of neither committing to nor denying military support, was meant to deter reckless moves by either China or Taiwan. But now, ambiguity fuels anxiety. Taiwan’s opposition accuses America of being unreliable, while Beijing remains unsure whether a quick win is even possible after observing Russia’s failed blitz on Ukraine. The ongoing war in Ukraine has shifted Taiwan’s focus. Now the goal is prolonged resistance. At a recent Taiwan Trilateral Forum in Berlin, Taiwanese officials stressed the need to demonstrate the island’s ability to fight over an extended period. The logic: buying time for international aid and challenging China’s legitimacy. There’s growing awareness of Taiwan’s vulnerabilities—from its reliance on imports for chip manufacturing to its energy dependence. Public sentiment is shifting too: previously anti-nuclear groups are reconsidering for national security’s sake. Taiwan is boosting civilian resilience through stockpiles, training drills, and learning from countries like Israel and Finland. New President Lai Ching-te is more open than predecessor Tsai Ing-wen, publicly leading resilience efforts to bridge partisan divides. Diplomatically, such efforts let allies support Taiwan without provoking China through arms deals. Some Taiwanese quietly debate a final step: preparing for resistance even under occupation. Though controversial, it reflects a sobering realization from Ukraine—survival requires preparation, unity, and the will to endure. 台灣思考難以想像的未來：在沒有美國援助下抵抗中國 台灣的防衛策略長期以來依賴於一個前提：能夠撐過中國的攻擊至少一個月，好讓美國有時間介入。然而，對這場「及時救援」的信心正日益動搖，特別是在美國的政治言論越來越不確定的情況下。川普對烏克蘭防衛問題的模糊態度，以及過去輕視台灣自保能力的言論，已讓台灣人心惶惶。 美國長期奉行的「戰略模糊」政策──不明確表示是否會軍援台灣──原意是為了防止中台任何一方魯莽改變現狀。但如今，這種模糊反而成了焦慮的來源。台灣在野黨指責美國靠不住，而北京則因俄羅斯閃電戰在烏克蘭的失敗，也開始懷疑自己是否真能迅速取勝。 烏克蘭戰爭的持久性也迫使台灣重新思考防禦戰略。如今的重點轉為長期抗戰。在最近於柏林舉行的台灣三方論壇中，台灣官員強調，必須向國際展示其具備持久作戰的能力。其戰略邏輯在於拖延時間以等待國際支援，並挑戰中國的正當性。 對台灣脆弱性的認識也在上升，從對半導體製造原料的進口依賴，到能源供應的脆弱性。輿論也出現轉變：原本反對核能的團體，現在也開始重新評估能源政策與國安的關係。政府正透過糧食、水、藥品和能源儲備、全民演習等方式，強化民間韌性，並向以色列和芬蘭等國學習。 新任總統賴清德比前總統蔡英文更願意公開推動這些防衛努力，希望彌合黨派分歧。這也為盟友提供不需出售武器就能援助台灣的外交空間，減少激怒中國的風險。 一些台灣人也開始默默討論最後一步：即便被佔領，也要準備抵抗。雖然這在島內極具爭議，但從烏克蘭的經驗來看，這反映出一個嚴峻的現實：要生存，必須提前準備、保持團結，並有堅持到底的決心。 -- Hosting provided by SoundOn