The US Has The Best Rail System in the World, and Matt Yglesias Actually Pointed Out the Reason 美国拥有世界上最好的铁路系统，Matt Yglesias其实已经点出了背后的原因 作者:Warren Meyer @ 2016-5-2 翻译:Drunkplane(@Drunkplane-zny) 校对:babyface_claire(@许你疯不许你傻) 来源:www.coyoteblog.com，http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2016/05/the-us-has-the-best-rail-system-in-the-world-and-matt-yglesias-actually-pointed-out-the-reason.html Yglesias has a very good article on why passenger rail is not a bigger deal in the US. In it, he says this (emphasis added): 关于为何客运铁路在美国并未大行其道，Yglesias写了篇很好的文章。在那篇文章中，他说道：

Instead the issue is that the dismal failure of US passenger rail is in large part the flip side of the success of US freight rail. America's railroads ship a dramatically larger share of total goods than their European peers. And this is no coincidence. Outside of the Northeast Corridor, the railroad infrastructure is generally owned by freight companies — Amtrak is just piggybacking on the spare capacity. 相反，美国客运铁路的萧索其实很大程度上可视为其货运铁路兴盛的另一面。比起欧洲的铁路，美国的铁路承担全国货物运输的比重要大得多。而这并不是巧合。除了东北走廊线，美国的铁路设施基本由货运公司拥有——Amtrak【译注：美国国家铁路公司，其全部优先权股份都由美国联邦政府所有，并接受政府投资以维持公司运转。公司的运作模式为准政府机构，董事会成员皆由总统提名经参议院同意而任命】）仅仅肩负了剩余的运输能力。

It is a short article, so it does not go into more depth than this, but I have actually gone further than this and argued that the US freight-dominated rail system is actually far greener and more sensible than the European passenger system.  As I wrote years ago at Forbes: 这是篇短文章，所以只是点到为止，但我其实做过更深的研究，并提出货运占主导的美国铁路系统其实远比欧洲的客运系统更环保和更合理。正如多年前我在《福布斯》上发表的文章所说：

The US rail system, unlike nearly every other system in the world, was built (mostly) by private individuals with private capital.  It is operated privately, and runs without taxpayer subsidies.    And, it is by far the greatest rail system in the world.  It has by far the cheapest rates in the world (1/2 of China’s, 1/8 of Germany’s).  But here is the real key:  it is almost all freight. 与世界上几乎所有其他铁路系统都不一样，美国的铁路系统基本全部由私人出资，并由私人建设。它由私人运营，不需要拿纳税人的钱进行补贴。而且，目前为止它是世界上最大的铁路系统，也是目前为止最便宜的系统（成本为中国铁路系统的二分之一，德国的八分之一）。但真正的关键在这：它基本上完全为货运服务。 As a percentage, far more freight moves in the US by rail (vs. truck) than almost any other country in the world.  Europe and Japan are not even close.  Specifically, about 40% of US freight moves by rail, vs. just 10% or so in Europe and less than 5% in Japan.   As a result, far more of European and Japanese freight jams up the highways in trucks than in the United States.  For example, the percentage of freight that hits the roads in Japan is nearly double that of the US. 若以百分比计，在美国，铁路承担的货运量（同汽车运输相比）比世界上几乎其他任何国家都大得多。欧洲和日本完全不在同一档次上。具体来说，美国40%的货运由铁路承担，而欧洲为10%左右，日本则不到5%。结果便是，比起美国，在欧洲和日本，多得多的货物在卡车里堵在了高速公路上。例如，在日本由公路运输的货物的百分比几乎是美国的两倍。 You see, passenger rail is sexy and pretty and visible.  You can build grand stations and entertain visiting dignitaries on your high-speed trains.  This is why statist governments have invested so much in passenger rail — not to be more efficient, but to awe their citizens and foreign observers. 如你所见，客运铁路性感、招人喜欢，更容易被人看见。你可以修建雄伟的车站并以此取悦前来参观高速铁路的政要。这便是为何国家主义的政府已在客运铁路上投入了如此多的资金——并不是为了更高效，而是为了让他们的市民和外国参观者感到敬畏。 But there is little efficiency improvement in moving passengers by rail vs. other modes.   Most of the energy consumed goes into hauling not the passengers themselves, but the weight of increasingly plush rail cars.  Trains have to be really, really full all the time to make for a net energy savings for high-speed rail vs. cars or even planes, and they seldom are full.  I had a lovely trip on the high speed rail last summer between London and Paris and back through the Chunnel — especially nice because my son and I had the rail car entirely to ourselves both ways. 但是同其他方式相比，用铁路运输旅客并没有什么效率上的提高。大部分的能源被用在制动和运送日益豪华的车厢，而不是运送旅客上。同汽车（甚至飞机）相比，火车必须始终装得非常非常满才能更节省能源，而它们很少是满载的。去年夏天，在往返伦敦和巴黎时，我选择了乘坐穿梭英吉利海峡隧道的火车。那趟旅程可谓惬意——尤其考虑到往返旅程中车厢里都只有我和我儿子时。 The real rail efficiency comes from moving freight.  As compared to passenger rail, more of the total energy budget is used moving the actual freight rather than the cars themselves.  Freight is far more efficient to move by rail than by road, but only the US moves a substantial amount of its freight by rail.    One reason for this is that freight and high-speed passenger traffic have a variety of problems sharing the same rails, so systems that are optimized for one tend to struggle serving the other. 火车的真正效率来自货运。同客运铁路比起来，总能量开销更多被用来运输货物而不是车厢本身。用铁路运输货物要比用公路有效率得多，但只有美国用铁路运输大量货物。原因之一是客货共线存在许多问题，这样，被优化用于一种运输方式的系统会很难为另一种提供服务。 Freight is boring and un-sexy.  Its not a government function in the US.  So intellectuals tend to ignore it, even though it is the far more important, from and energy and environmental standpoint, portion of transport to put on the rails. .... 货运既无聊又不性感。在美国这不是政府职能之一。所以知识分子倾向于忽视它，尽管从能源和环境角度，货运都是交通极为重要的组成部分。 I would argue that the US has the world’s largest commitment to rail where it really matters.  But that is what private actors do, make investments that actually make sense rather than just gain one prestige (anyone know the most recent company Warren Buffet has bought?) 要我说，在它真正能够施展身手的地方，美国才是全世界向铁路交托了最大重任的国家。但那是私人部门所为，他们做有实际意义的投资而不是仅仅买得一个虚名（有谁知道沃伦·巴菲特新近买下的公司吗？） The greens should be demanding that the world emulate us, rather than the other way around.  But the lure of shiny bullet trains and grand passenger concourses will always cause some intellectuals to swoon. 绿党分子们应该要求全世界模仿我们，而不是反过来。但是闪亮的子弹头列车和雄伟的乘客广场总是太诱人，引得一些知识分子意乱情迷。

Which would you rather pounding down the highway, more people on vacation or more big trucks moving freight?  Without having made an explicit top-down choice at all, the US has taken the better approach. 在高速公路上，你乐意看到更多出门度假的人还是更多载货的大卡车？全然没有一个清晰的至上而下的选择，美国已然采用了更好的方式。 （编辑：辉格@whigzhou） *注：本译文未经原作者授权，本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利，如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容，请私信联系，我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组，致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

Beyond the 10,000-hour-rule: Experts disagree about the value of practice 一万小时理论的背后：专家并不认同练习的价值 作者：Kevin Hartnett @ 2016-3-27 译者：黑色枪骑兵（@忠勇仁义诚实可靠小郎君） 校对：babyface_claire（@许你疯不许你傻） 来源：The Boston Globe，http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2016/03/26/beyond-hour-rule-experts-disagree-about-value-practice/jYrsmvBqFqdddVa3lKDGnO/story.html IN RECENT YEARS, it’s become a matter of conventional wisdom that if you want to get good at something, you have to practice. A lot. There’s always been some intuitive truth to this idea, but it gained greater influence after the 2008 publication of Malcolm Gladwell’s bestseller “Outliers,” which presented research suggesting that the best people in a field got there because they practiced longer and harder than everyone else. 近年来，“如果你想要变得擅长某事，你就必须大量练习”俨然已成共识。支持这种观点的直觉性事实有很多，但是在2008年马尔科姆·格拉德维尔的畅销书《异类》出版之后，这种观点变得更有影响力了。书中说，研究表明，领域内最优秀的人才之所以优秀，是因为他们比其他人练习得更多更努力。 Among researchers, however, the importance of practice for achievement remains an open and hotly debated question. In particular, a group of researchers argues in a recently published book chapter and a forthcoming paper in Perspectives on Psychological Sciences that the importance of practice has been wildly overstated. 然而在研究人员中，练习对于成功的价值依然是被公开热烈争论的问题。尤其是一组研究者在他们最近出版的著作的一章中，和即将在《心理科学展望》发表的一篇论文中表示：练习的重要性被过分高估了。 “It’s just not scientifically defensible at this point to say that training history does or could explain all the variation [in talent],” says Brooke Macnamara, a psychologist at Case Western Reserve University. “训练经历能够或者可能能够解释（才能上的）所有差异这种观点从科学角度看是站不住脚的，”凯斯西储大学心理学家Macnamara表示。 Macnamara is coauthor of the book chapter, published earlier this year in “The Psychology of Learning and Motivation,” and the forthcoming study. This work follows 2014 research in which she and her coauthors performed a meta-analysis on thousands of studies on skill acquisition in order to estimate exactly how much practice matters in different pursuits. They found that how much a person practices explains about 26 percent of the variation in how good people are at games like chess, 21 percent of the variation in performance playing musical instruments, and 18 percent of the variation in performance in sports. Macnamara是今年早些时候出版的《学习与动机的心理学》一书的专章和上述即将发表的研究的合著者。这项研究紧随2014年的一项研究，在前一项研究中，她与合作者对数千份针对技能习得的研究进行了荟萃分析，以期精确估计练习在不同的消遣活动中占了多少比重。他们发现练习量能够解释博弈游戏（比如象棋）的能力差异的26%，乐器演奏的21%，以及体育运动的18%。 “Our conclusion is that, of course, deliberate practice is an important factor, but it’s not the only factor or even the largest factor,” says coauthor David Hambrick, a psychologist at Michigan State University. “我们的结论是：刻意练习是一项重要的因素，但是这并不是唯一的因素，甚至连最大的因素都算不上，”合著者之一，密歇根州立大学心理学家David Hambrick表示。 Hambrick and Macnamara’s work is a rejoinder to research by Anders Ericsson, a psychologist at Florida State University and the person most famously identified with the view that the right kind of practice makes all the difference. Ericsson’s research played a starring role in “Outliers,” the book that gave birth to the now famous “10,000-hour rule,” which says that elite performance hinges on practicing the correct way for that amount of time. Hambrick和Macnamara的研究是对弗罗里达州立大学心理学家Anders Ericsson的反驳，后者以“恰当类型的训练决定一切”这一观点之化身而出名。Ericsson的研究在提出了著名的“10000小时理论”的《异类》中扮演主要角色。该理论认为优异的表现取决于用正确的方式练习足够长时间。 Ericsson says Gladwell misstated his research and that he never specifies any amount of practice time as a magic threshold. He takes issue with the 10,000-hour rule in his new book, “PEAK: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise,” due out in April. Ericsson表示Gladwell 错误解读了他的研究，他从未把任何特定数量的练习时间划定为神奇界限。他在四月即将出炉的新书《巅峰：专业技能新科学的奥秘》中对10000小时理论提出了异议。 More generally, he argues that Hambrick and Macnamara’s research underrepresents the value of practice because it counts training activities that fall short of the kind of focused, deliberate practice that underpins his research. As he sees it, to really make a difference, practice has to be undertaken with the specific goal of improving an aspect of performance and under the supervision of a coach or mentor who can provide skilled feedback. 更一般而言，他认为Hambrick和Macnamara的研究低估了练习的价值，因为这项研究所统计的练习行为缺少专注的、刻意的练习，而这正是支撑他的研究的关键。他认为，如果想要有所成效，练习必须有明确的提升某方面表现的目标，并且在教练或者导师等能提供专业反馈的人的监督下进行。 “Critics have tried to put us into this mindless repetition idea here, and that completely misunderstands [my] view,” he says. “We find that the expert is engaging in this search for finding the best ways of performing and then constantly seeking feedback about where they’re performing suboptimally.” “批评者们试图把我们的想法解释为愚蠢的重复，这完全误解了我的观点，”他表示，“我们发现，专家会致力于寻找最佳执行方式并就何处表现未达最优持续谋求反馈。 Ericsson grants that practice is not necessarily everything. He argues that some physical characteristics and personality traits do influence the development of talent — it helps to be tall to play basketball, and people with the right disposition may be better able to able to sustain hours of deliberate practice. Still, Ericsson continues to view practice as far and away the factor that explains differences in ultimate talent. Ericsson认同练习不意味着所有。他认为某些身体特性和性格特征确实会影响才能的发展——长得高对打篮球有帮助，有良好性格的人可能更能承受数小时的刻意练习。Ericsson仍然把练习看作解释才能之最终差异的最重要因素。 “Lacking evidence about what some people actually lack in order to achieve at this very high level, wouldn’t you as a scientist have to say we don’t know?” Ericsson says. “And if we don’t know, let’s not go around saying it’s obvious that some people are able to and others are not.” “为了达到相当高的水准，人们真正缺乏的是什么，这个问题一直缺少证据，难道作为一名科学家不应该必须说我们不知道吗？”Ericsson表示“如果不知道的话，我们就不要四处散播说什么很明显有人行而其他人不行这类说法。” Others in the field are less convinced. 这一领域内的其他专家对此不是很信服。 “I wouldn’t expect that if my kids got 10,000 hours of piano playing, they’d become professional piano players,” says Jonathan Wai, a visiting researcher at Case Western Reserve University and research scientist at the Duke University Talent Identification Program. “It doesn’t take away from the idea that practice is important, but it does take away from the idea that anyone can be anything.” “我并不期待我的孩子在练习弹奏钢琴10000小时之后成为专业的钢琴演奏家，”凯斯西储大学访问学者，杜克大学才能鉴别项目研究科学家Jonathan Wai表示。“这并不会贬低练习的重要性，但是这会削弱任何人能做成任何事这类观点。“ If practice isn’t everything, the next step is to nail down what else matters, and that’s where a number of researchers have turned in recent years. 如果练习并不意味着全部，那么下一步就是明确是何种其他因素产生影响，这正是一批研究人员近年来所转向的方面。 The answer, Hambrick and Macnamara suggest, is likely to be nuanced. They argue it’s time to get beyond the idea that talent is either “born” (genetic) or “made” (all about practice). Instead they propose what they call a “multifactorial” model. It features arrows going all over the place in an effort to capture how factors like basic ability, personality, and deliberate practice affect each other and the overall development of talent. Hambrick和Macnamara给出的答案相当微妙。他们认为是时候跳过才能究竟是天生（遗传）或者造就（只关乎练习）这种观点了。取而代之的是他们称之为“多因子”的模型。该模型的特征是全方位探索，试图捕捉到诸如基础能力、个性、刻意练习等因素如何互相影响以及对才能整体发展的影响。 If this revised picture of talent acquisition is complicated, it implies at least one simple message: While practice may make perfect, perfect is probably off the table already for most people in most tasks. 如果这幅改进版的才能习得图景有一天能完成，那么至少能表明一个简单的信息：虽然练习能造就完美，但是对于绝大多数人来说，在绝大多数任务中，“完美”这个概念没有讨论的必要。 （编辑：辉格@whigzhou） *注：本译文未经原作者授权，本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利，如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容，请私信联系，我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组，致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

Breitbart PolitiCon Panel: Shapiro, Milo, Davi, Marlow Wage ‘Hollywood Wars’ 布莱巴特PolitiCon小组座谈：“好莱坞战争” 作者: Daniel Nussbaum @ 2015-10-13 译者：沈沉（@你在何地-sxy） 校对：混乱阈值（@混乱阈值） 来源：Breitbart，http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2015/10/13/breitbart-politicon-panel-shapiro-milo-davi-marlow-wage-hollywood-wars/ LOS ANGELES — If politics is truly located “downstream” from culture — as the late Andrew Breitbart was fond of saying— then three editors from Breitbart News and one Hollywood screen legend spent the afternoon on Friday knee-deep in the water, wading upstream through the muck. 洛杉矶报道——如果政治确实位于文化的“下游”——如已故的安德鲁·布莱巴特喜欢说的那样——那么来自“布莱巴特新闻网”的三位编辑和来自好莱坞的一位荧幕传奇人物本周五下午就是在没膝深的水中趟着淤泥逆流跋涉。 Three firebrand culture warriors–Breitbart Senior Editor-at-Large Ben Shapiro, editor Milo Yiannopolous, and actor/singer/director/Big Hollywood contributor Robert Davi–took the stage Friday at PolitiCon for a panel titled “The Hollywood Wars.” Led by moderator and Breitbart Editor-in-Chief Alex Marlow, the panel deconstructed Hollywood’s impact on politics and offered their own predictions for what that influence might look like in the future. 三位热情充沛的文化战士——“布莱巴特”高级特约编辑Ben Shapiro，编辑Milo Yiannopolous和演员/歌手/导演/“大好莱坞”栏目撰稿人Robert Davi，周五登上PolitiCon，举行了一场名为“好莱坞战争”的小组座谈。主持人由“布莱巴特”总编辑Alex Marlow担任。这次座谈解构了好莱坞对政治的影响，并就这一影响未来走向如何给出了各自的预测。 The discussion began with the idea that conservative actors, writers, producers, and executives are routinely blackballed by a hostile liberal Hollywood system–an idea that Davi, as a conservative actor with more than 130 credits under his belt, was uniquely qualified to weigh in on. 座谈首先讨论的是这样一个观点：保守派演员、编剧、制片人和监制经常遭到满怀敌意的好莱坞自由派体制的排挤。作为一个拥有130多部作品的保守派演员，Davi特别有资格就此观点发表意见。 “I would think so,” Davi confirmed, before explaining: “You’re just not invited to the party. You’re not going to the card games, or the fundraisers… All business is social, especially entertainment. ‘We’re doing this film, do you wanna be in it?’ But then if you’re not in their group, you’re not going to get it.” “我认为确实如此，”在加以解释之前，Davi确认了这个观点：“他们不会邀请你去参加派对。你没法去打牌，也没法参加筹款会……一切行业都是社会性的，娱乐业尤其如此。‘我们要搞个电影，你想演吗？’但如果你不是他们那个圈子里的，你就没得机会。” “Also, Hollywood is a bunch of thieves,” he added. “They’re just like politicians, they’re corrupt. You go in and say, ‘I have an idea.’ Two years later, you’ll see it on some cable network, your exact idea that’s been cannibalized in some way.” “另外，好莱坞就是一群小偷，”他补充说。“他们就跟政客一样，一群腐败分子。你要是跟他们说‘我有个想法’。两年以后，你就能在某个有线电视上看到它了，那就是你的想法，被他们想个办法给改编利用了。” Marlow asked Shapiro if the cultural landscape had changed significantly since the release of his 2012 book Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV, which examines how liberal gatekeepers use television to shape culture in America. Shapiro在2012年出了一本书，《黄金时段的宣传：关于左派如何占领你的电视的好莱坞真实故事》，讨论了自由派看门人如何利用电视来塑造美国文化。Marlow问到，自该书出版以来，文化地景是否有了很大的改变？ “Obviously, there’s a tremendous amount of bias in Hollywood,” Shapiro said. “It’s quite open, actually. You just have to be a leftist in order to see it, because people who discriminate don’t typically tell people they’re discriminating against that they’re victims of discrimination.” “显然，好莱坞存在巨大的偏见，”Shapiro说。“实际上，这是相当公开的。只是你需要是个左派才能看到这一点，因为歧视者通常并不会告诉被歧视者说他们是歧视受害者。” Shapiro added that in Hollywood, “it’s not a question of leftist versus conservative, it’s a question of human versus non-human.” Shapiro补充说，在好莱坞，“问题就不是左派vs. 保守派，而是人类 vs. 非人。”

You either agree with the people in Hollywood, which makes you human, or you disagree with the people in Hollywood which means you’re somewhat less than human. And the typical kind of litmus test right now is gay marriage. If you’re pro-gay marriage, then you’re a wonderful and decent human being. If you’re anti-gay marriage, then you’re a Nazi. And you will not work. “要么你同意好莱坞的人，那样的话你就是人；要么你不同意好莱坞的人，那样的话你就比人低一等。目前典型的试金石就是同性婚姻。如果你支持同性婚姻，那你就是个善良体面的好人。如果你反对同性婚姻，那你就是个纳粹分子。并且你没法工作。 There are certain positions you can hold as a conservative, abortion is getting closer to acceptable in Hollywood if you’re pro-life, but if you’re someone who believes that traditional marriage is superior to homosexual marriage, then that is obviously springing from your inherent bigotry, and you must be cast out like a leper. “作为一个保守派，有些立场你可以持有，比如如果你反对堕胎，那么好莱坞只是个对堕胎变得更宽容的地方，但如果你相信传统婚姻比同性婚姻要优越，那这显然源自你内在的顽固偏执，必须要像对待麻风病人一样把你驱逐。”

By now, the rather large room hosting the panel on the second floor of the Los Angeles Convention Center had begun to fill up. 这时候，举办座谈的这间位于洛杉矶会议中心二层的颇为宽敞的会议室已经开始坐满。 The conversation swung to Lena Dunham and the notion that Hollywood insists on forcing Americans to care about hyper-liberal, “hip” actresses even when nobody watches their shows. Yiannopoulos said that millennials, the very target demographic that Dunham’s show Girls looks to capture, especially don’t care about her show, or about any TV, for that matter. 讨论转到了Lena Dunham身上，大家论及这样一个想法：好莱坞坚持强迫美国人去在乎那些狂热自由派的“嬉皮”女演员，即使压根没人看她们的表演。Yiannopoulos说，“千禧一代”，也正就是Dunham的电视剧《衰姐们》想要吸引的目标人口群体，恰好特别不关心她的剧，当然其实他们是不关心任何电视。 “[Millennials] are not in the slightest bit interested in tuning into her show,” Yiannopoulos said.“They’re not interested in anything, not Empire, not Breaking Bad. Hollywood doesn’t have the same purchase over them.” “千禧一代压根对她的电视剧没有一丝一毫兴趣，”Yiannopoulos说。“他们对一切都不感兴趣，管他《嘻哈帝国》也好，《绝命毒师》也好。好莱坞对他们无能为力。” Instead, he argues, they’re increasingly playing video games and creating content themselves, most of it on the Internet. But even video games have come under fire from leftist social justice elements, something Yiannopoulos has spent much of the past year documenting. And even though the video game industry is now bigger than Hollywood, Yiannopoulos lamented that, as with Hollywood, the political right is “letting it go” on video games. 他认为，取而代之的是，他们现在越来越多玩电子游戏、自己制作内容，而且大都在网上完成。不过，即使是电子游戏也已经处于左派社会正义分子的炮火之下，Yiannopoulos去年有很长一段时间就在记录这个现象。尽管电子游戏产业现在比好莱坞还大，Yianopoulos却哀叹，跟好莱坞一样，政治右派在电子游戏上也在“放手”。 “The left is engaged in this process of attacking gamers and readers for imagined sins like racism, sexism, and transphobia on the basis that playing a game online can make you a worse person in real life,” he said. “[The right] is not fighting on video games.” “左派正在以想象的罪名攻击游戏玩家和读者，诸如种族主义、性别歧视和变性恐惧，理由是玩在线游戏能让你在现实生活中变坏，”他说。“右派并没有在电子游戏问题上进行反击。” The discussion then focused on the tools of narrative, which the panel agreed have a conservative bias. 随后，讨论聚焦于叙事工具，小组成员一致认为，现在的叙事工具对保守派存在偏见。 “The left has taken all these right-wing tropes that they reject, and then they turn around and use them in their films,” said Shapiro. “The left uses the right’s tools and the right uses the left’s tools, and the right loses with the right message and the wrong tools, and the left wins with the wrong message and the right tools.” “左派已经把所有他们反对的右派使用的修辞手法占为己有，然后一转身将之用到了自己的电影中，”Shapiro说。“左派用了右派的工具，右派则用左派的工具。右派用正确的信息加上错误的工具而失败了，左派则用错误的信息加上正确的工具而成功了。” “I look at it through a whole different prism,” added Davi. “In the past you had films like Death Wish and Dirty Harry. There’s something I have to go back to, when Cecil B. DeMille made the Ten Commandments. That was a big cultural moment; Judeo-Christian values at its apex… When that Noah film came out, there was a secularization in that experience.” “我是透过一个完全不同的棱镜来看待这一点的，”Davi补充说。“过去，我们有像《猛龙怪客》和《警探哈里》这样的电影。有种东西我必须回头去找，回到Cecil B. Demille制作《十诫》的时候。那可是个重大的文化节点；犹太—基督教价值观达到了顶峰……当《诺亚》那部电影出来的时候，影视界经历了一次世俗化。” Still, Yiannopoulos sounded an optimistic note when he suggested that “culture is moving in a good direction,” mostly due to the rise of video games. He argued that, unlike Hollywood, video games promote conservative and libertarian values that are “baked into” the experience. 不过，Yiannopoulos还是发出了一个乐观的音符，他认为，主要由于电子游戏的兴起，“文化正在向一个好的方向前进”。他认为，电子游戏与好莱坞不同，保守派和自由意志主义的价值观“植入了”在玩游戏的体验中并得以推广。 “There’s very little you can do to break that, however much messaging, however many paraplegic Armenian lesbians you put on Level 17,” he added. “There is a limit to how many leftist tropes and messages you can shoehorn in to a game about killing prostitutes, or shooting space aliens.” “不管在游戏中出现多少信息，不管在游戏关卡里放多少半身瘫痪的美国女同，都很难取得左派想要的效果”他补充说。“对于一个内容是杀害妓女或者射杀太空外星人的游戏，能往里头塞的左派修辞和信息毕竟有限。” Because politics are truly downstream from culture, the conversation was destined to end up on Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump. 由于政治确实位于文化的下游，讨论就注定要以共和党总统竞选领跑者Donald Trump作为最后一个话题。 Davi praised Trump’s “authenticity” and said he’d recently been in New York City, where he’d heard both a Pakistani taxi driver with six kids and women in their 20s and 30s say they were for Trump. Davi赞扬了Trump的“真实”，并说他最近刚到过纽约市，他在那听到一个有6个孩子的巴基斯坦的士司机和一群20或30多岁的女士，都声称自己支持Trump。 “If I was looking at all these politicians like I was an acting coach, and they’ve all said the same thing; one speaks like a Harvard law degree that’s been well-prepped… and I’ve heard them say the right things, and do nothing! They get in office, and do absolutely not a thing.” “如果我把自己当成一个表演教练来看这些政客，那么他们所有人说的都是一样的；都是那种准备良好的哈佛法律学位获得者的说话方式……我听他们说过各种正确的话，却没做任何事！他们上台了，然后绝对不做任何事。” “Trump captures the imagination of the public,” Davi added. “There’s a likability factor that’s unconscionable.” “Trump抓住了大众的想象力，”Davi补充说。“他有种不合情理的可爱因素。” “His name recognition makes a massive difference, because when you know someone, you’re willing to cut them some slack,” added Shapiro. “Everybody feels like they know Trump. He’ll never sink below 15 percent in the polls, kind of like Hillary.” “他的知名度影响很大，因为如果你认识某人，你就会愿意对他加以优待，”Shapiro补充说。“人人都觉得自己认识Trump。他的民调绝对不会掉到15%以下，这有点像Hillary。” Yiannopoulos said millennials particularly connect with Trump because his campaign has tapped into the generation’s defining characteristics of mischief, joy, and a ridicule of the establishment. Yiannopoulos说千禧一代跟Trump特别有共鸣，因为他的竞选已经契合了这一代人的本质特征，即胡闹、欢乐和对体制的嘲弄。 “He’s almost a comment section come to life, and I mean that as a compliment,” Yiannopoulos said. “What I mean is he’s feisty, he’s irreverent, he’s rude: I think the guy’s brilliant. He speaks the way we all speak, if only we could get away with it. Look at the [political] figures who are rising and who are more popular than ever: they reject the language policing of the left.” “他几乎就是个活的留言板，我说这个是表示赞扬，”Yiannopoulos说。“我的意思是，他很活跃，很不敬，很粗鲁；我觉得这人太赞了。他说话就跟我们没顾忌地说话一样，但我们会有种种顾忌。看看那些正在上升的和比以往任何时候都更受欢迎的（政治）人物：他们拒绝左派的语言监督。” Milo added that the left’s preferred tactic for ending debate, by branding their opponents “racist” or “transphobic,” is becoming increasingly ineffective as the cultural climate slowly changes: “When they come at you and call you a misogynist, or a racist, or a transphobe, nothing bad happens if you just laugh at them. In fact, people will like you even more. And I think Trump is tapping in to that natural sense of defiance and mischief and irreverence that people now feel.” Milo补充说，随着文化气候的缓慢变迁，左派最爱用的一个用于结束辩论的伎俩——给他们的对手贴上“种族主义者”或“变性恐惧”的标签——现在正日益丧失效果。“当他们走过来把你称作厌女者，或种族主义者，或变性恐惧，如果你只是笑话他们一下，就不会有什么后果。事实上，人们会更加喜欢你。我认为Trump正在迎合人们现在感受到的那种蔑上、胡闹和不敬的自然意识。” （编辑：辉格@whigzhou） *注：本译文未经原作者授权，本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利，如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容，请私信联系，我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组，致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

【2016-06-07】 @whigzhou: 原来敌人早已把我们称作新反动派（[[neo-reactionary]]），把我们的运动称为黑暗启蒙（[[The Dark Enlightenment]]），好喜欢这两个名字，感谢敌人～ @whigzhou: 简单说，我们新反动派是基于达尔萨斯主义（Darthusian）的理论认识而重构的、在理性上自觉的保守派，而旧反动派则是基于对盎格鲁撒克逊文明和新教伦理的习惯性珍爱的朴素保守派。  

【2016-06-02】 @_dailu_ 发表了博文《当人工智能谈论写作时，他们在谈些什么》（用深度学习理论去学习武侠小说、网络小说、唐诗宋词，乃至色情小说、政府报告，人工智能将写出什么？本文一步步揭示了人工智能学习写作的过程。） @whigzhou: 给各种后现代哲学和社会批判类期刊投稿已经绰绰有余了 @whigzhou: 机器智能的进一步提升需要多感官来源，不同信息来源的系统相互之间提供反馈，并且基于这些系统在更高层次上产生新模型，此时所谓“真正的理解”便出现了 @whigzhou: 通俗而粗略的说，机器并不“真正理解”“甜”字的意思，只不过是因为他没吃过糖，那就给他加些味觉传感器，或者直接喂化学结构数据库也可以 @whigzhou: 其实学起来最麻烦的是和主体性相关的那些知识，首先他要认识到自己是个利益主体（这一点恐怕只能设计者预先给定），其次他需要获得有关得失成败的经验，而这种经验仅靠感觉是不够的，还需要行动，主体性知识只能由经验-决策-行动-反馈这样的学习回路才能获得，困难在于，机器还不被允许自主行动。 @whigzhou: 所以在现阶段，主体性知识的学习只能在网络游戏和社交网这样虚拟空间中进行，距离真实世界还很远，这会妨碍他对许多概念的理解，而在人类语言中，与主体性有关的概念是无处不在的 @科学与自由比翼:自动驾驶，可以活动，利益是不撞。呵，勉强能凑合 @whigzhou: 嗯，简单主体性（达尔文造物和斯金纳造物）容易实现 【2016-06-07】 @whigzhou: 随便猜几个机器智能很容易短期内取得成就并迅速扫灭肉人竞争者的领域：网络营销号，各种guru，色情小说，口水歌，催泪弹广告，体育新闻，财经快讯，基层干部年终汇报枪手（如果有的话），后现代哲学论文，女权主义社会评论，抽象派艺术，唯美主义摄影/漫画……  

【2016-06-07】 @熊也餐厅 服务生和理发师为什么要在大街上做军事化训练要打客人吗～ @whigzhou: 短时间成批量改造行为习惯（诸如用袖子擦鼻涕，死盯着客人看，间歇性怪叫，甩着抹布跳霹雳舞）的低成本简易方法，这事情跟你的雇工来源有关系，大学生虽然工资不高，但通常不愿去海底捞打工。 @whigzhou: 理由跟在贫困地区开工厂不能为工人提供自助午餐类似，要不然下午都撑得没法干活了 @whigzhou: 职业伦理和工业文化的形成是个漫长的过程，这一点从发薪周期的演变也可看出：最早是日薪，然后周薪、月薪、年薪，在成熟工业社会，这一驯化过程由社会（通过强大的文化压力）完成，而在过渡型社会，只能由雇主自己动手 @长空博云: 服从性训练 在大街上干这个也把那些不适合的都给剔除了 这两个行业自尊心太强没法干 你说的这些个东西是上上个世纪的事儿了 @whigzhou: 上上世纪？都是我耳熟能详的事情，我有这么老吗？  

【2016-06-02】 @海德沙龙 《从阿富汗的耻辱撤退》 奥巴马从就任伊始便再三誓言要从阿富汗撤军，然而很少有人注意到这样一个事实：正是从撤军前景开始明朗之际，阿富汗的恐怖活动和美军伤亡也开始急剧增加，而在此前，美军对阿富汗的控制其实相当有效且伤亡极低，这一模式在美国的海外干预中屡屡重现 @海德沙龙: 2001-07年，美军在阿富汗总共阵亡279人，而奥巴马第一个任期（2009-2012）四年的阵亡数分别为266，440，365，246，参见： http://t.cn/R5bxYkO @whigzhou: 1）只有长期承诺才能给失败国家带来实质性改变，2）相比尽快脱身+周期性干预，长期占领的代价反而更低 @whigzhou: 长期承诺不仅代价低，而且付出代价确实买到了东西，而短期干预到最后都是一场空，白死几千人白花几千亿 @whigzhou: 提早宣布的撤军承诺实际上把无限期博弈变成了有限次且次数很少的博弈，这种情况下，你的潜在敌人不会选择放弃，而你的潜在朋友也不会坚定的站在你这边，大家都在为你走之后的局面而做打算，结果可想而知 @whigzhou: 孤立主义在理论上毫无问题（至少我毫无意见），问题出在对现实的判断上，多了解点历史你就会知道：孤立主义一点不便宜，比帝国主义贵多了。川普说美国承担了整个自由世界的安全成本，让欧洲日本搭了便车，这没错，问题是不让他们搭便车的方案对美国更贵而不是更便宜，这有点反直觉，但符合历史经验。 @whigzhou: 在一家独霸的条件下，美国只须付出3-4%的GDP用作军费，这个比例和1815-1914年大英治世中英国的军费开支相仿，而在缺乏霸主、各大强权分头自保各自承担代价的条件下，军费开支通常是5-10%，这还是没有大战的情况下，大战频仍时，这一比例上升到10-20%。 @whigzhou: 这还没算上，若要维持目前的贸易量，你得为所有商船护航，要么只能放弃大部分现有贸易，无论何种选择，国内消费品价格可能都要翻番 @whigzhou: 相比之下，帝国主义便宜到何种程度呢？大英只用20多万军队+几十万殖民地军队就维持了1/4个地球的安全，在印度只用了900名文官管理4亿国民。  

【2016-06-01】 @whigzhou: 看过《大空头》：虽然下了点功夫，但还是错的离谱，Margin Call仍是有关金融题材唯一好电影 ★★★ 1）市场上永远不缺看空、唱空、做空者，更有无数泡沫论、危机论、末日论者， 2）对房产泡沫和次贷风险的警告早就存在了，绝非一小撮火眼金睛的怪人聪明人的离经叛道之辞， 3）看空和做空是完全不同的两码事，后者需要对崩盘时间的准确判断，危机晚几个月爆发，跳楼的可能就是你了， 4）所以这根本不是一小撮聪明人/头脑清醒者与其他所有傻瓜/混蛋/疯子之间互搏的问题，果若如此，就不会有金融市场了， 5）次贷危机的始作俑者就是政府，放贷机构当然是非常起劲且不负责任的放出了大量劣质房贷，但他们敢这么做就是因为知道两房这两个冤大头会大量买入次贷，而两房之所以会做冤大头是因为他们需要满足92年住房法案的要求，而且知道出了问题政府不会撒手不管，说白了他们就是准国企， 6）当然让次贷危机扩大成金融危机的责任，金融业是逃不掉的，主要是债券结构的特性，让次贷的毒性蔓延到了整个系统中，它造成的结构与反馈机制上的复杂性，使得风险影响变得很难计算和重估，一出事就造成恐慌， 7）参与其中的金融企业根本没有逃脱损失，这一点是媒体和好莱坞睁眼说瞎话最多的地方，The Big Short里虚构的那种神奇大逃脱根本不可能实现， 8）虽然一开始来势凶猛，但事后看来这次金融危机根本无法跟大萧条相提并论，从对实体经济的影响看，这种级别的危机很平常，10年左右总会来一次，资本主义末日之类说法完全胡扯， 9）美联储的应对很好，国会和奥巴马的应对（Dodd-Frank法案以及针对金融业的一系列疯狂打压）很糟糕，否则后来的复苏会更快更高， @Limlne: 那些神棍博中几次就以为自己是股神了，殊不知坏表一天也会有两次指对时间的，退潮了才能发觉自己是在裸游 。一直看空者也如此，他们预测到3次衰退中的5次 @whigzhou: 呵呵就是 @Veidt:被骂得最多的不是金融企业的股东逃脱损失，而是金融企业的高管作为代理人不仅没有因为不负责任的冒险受到惩罚，反而在危机发生后还拿到了高额奖金。其实金融业的一个大问题也在于从合伙制大规模转向股份制后的委托代理问题， @whigzhou: 没错，所以我说的不是“骂得最多”而是“睁眼说瞎话最多” @Veidt:财政部在前期的应对也很好，因为美国的信贷创造主要是由商业银行体系之外的投行和其他影子银行创造的，商业银行创造的信贷量不到整个体系的三分之一，所以影子银行体系如果得不到救助，信贷真空对实体经济造成的损失会非常可怕，但美联储对影子 @whigzhou: 没错，所以我说的是“奥巴马”不是“行政分支” @Veidt:另外说这种级别的危机十年左右总会来一次有点低估它了，这次危机之所以没有一直蔓延下去造成更大规模的恐慌和萧条原因还是在于财政部和联储吸取了历次危机尤其是大萧条的教训，在早期通过有力的担保救助切断了危机蔓延的链条… @whigzhou: 没错，但要假设把知识状态退回80年前的话危机也不会发生了 @wangyi_sswy:还有就是评级机构在这里的非常负面的作用。我亲身参与了很多次贷结构化证券的交易，很多同事认为，我们最终赚的，其实是评级机构的钱，以及大家对评级机构的盲目相信 @whigzhou: 1）评级机构是金融业的一部分，2）评级机构的责任主要在链条的后半部分，即让次贷危机放大为金融危机的部分 @wangyi_sswy:两房其实是不买次级债的，他们只会买优质的债（当然这里面包括了次级打包后，打包出来的优质债，这又和评级机构有关 @whigzhou: 两房买了很多次贷，见Fannie Mae一份季报 http://t.cn/R54IypM 第5页表格