謝謝
- My Posts
- Chat to Authors
Home
Home
Member since 2017-07-15T03:50:57Z. Last seen 2025-08-21T09:12:55Z.
2756 blog posts. 128 comments.
謝謝
Warren Buffett says this is ‘the ultimate test of how you have lived your life’—and Bill Gates agrees Published Sun, Sep 1 2019 9:00 AM EDTUpdated Sun, Sep 1 2019 9:34 AM EDT Tom Popomaronis, Contributor @TPOPOMARONIS
Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire HathawayPaul Morigi | Getty Images Warren Buffett is one of the richest people in the world, but money isn’t a factor when it comes to measuring the quality of his life.
In 2017, when Buffett and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates shared the stage for a talk at Columbia University, one student asked: “Are there any major life lessons that you two have learned about relationships through your personal experiences?”
“Well, it’s a very important question. You will move in the direction of the people that you associate with,” Buffett answered. “So it’s important to associate with people that are better than yourself.”
‘The ultimate test’
Buffett, who just turned 89 on Saturday, August 30th, 2019, has given similar advice in the past.
“Basically, when you get to my age, you’ll really measure your success in life by how many of the people you want to have love you actually do love you,” he said in 2001 during a speech at the University of Georgia.
“I know people who have a lot of money, and they get testimonial dinners and hospital wings named after them. But the truth is that nobody in the world loves them,” Buffett continued. “If you get to my age in life and nobody thinks well of you, I don’t care how big your bank account is — your life is a disaster. That’s the ultimate test of how you have lived your life.”
Choose your life partner wisely
Out of all the people who love you back, the most important person by far, according to Buffett, is your spouse. “I can’t overemphasize how important that is,” he said in his 2017 conversation with Gates.
In the 2017 HBO documentary “Becoming Warren Buffett,” the billionaire said that he owes some of his greatest qualities to his first wife Susan. “I just got very, very, very lucky. I was a lopsided person. And it took a while, but she just stood there with a little watering can and nourished me along and changed me,” he recalled.
In many ways, Susan did help Buffett become the man that he is today: She got him interested in civil rights, feminism, encouraged him to become more of a public figure and to donate more of his money during his lifetime.
If you get to my age in life and nobody thinks well of you, I don’t care how big your bank account is — your life is a disaster. Warren Buffett CEO, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY While they never got divorced, Susan moved away from Omaha and the two remained very close, according to the documentary. She also helped orchestrate Buffett’s relationship with Astrid Menks, whom he married after she died. (Buffett and Astrid tied the knot on August 30, 2006, the same day he turned 76 — and have since been together for 13 years.)
Bill Gates agrees with Buffett
In their conversation at Columbia University, Gates, who has been a longtime friend of Buffett’s, said that “some friends do bring out the best in you, so it’s good to invest in those friendships. It’s really through Melinda and seeing other people that I realized, okay, it’s really worth the investment to have those people, as you’re always there to help them and vice versa.”
Gates also commented on his marriage with Melinda last year, in a Facebook Live talk: There’s a certain type of intensity when you’re raising a family together, said, “but we’re very lucky because we mostly see things the same way. Our goals are very much the same.”
It takes all kinds
It many ways, Buffett’s words of wisdom sounds a lot like the warnings we received from our parents when we were younger about not hanging out with the wrong crowd.
Buffett’s own experience with friendships and love is proof that the people we let into our lives — the people who truly love and care about us — are the ones who push us to live successful, happy and meaningful lives.
Researchers have even found that people who have a strong support system in place (a.k.a. your friends and life partners) are less likely to suffer from depression and social isolation, which has in turn been associated with poorer health outcomes.
That’s more than enough reason to take Buffett’s advice into consideration by reflecting on the strength of your personal relationships by asking yourself questions like: Do the people who care about me really love me back? Do they make me a better person?
As Gates once said, “That’s about as good a metric as you will find.”
Warren Buffett says this is ‘the ultimate test of how you have lived your life’—and Bill Gates agrees Published Sun, Sep 1 2019 9:00 AM EDTUpdated Sun, Sep 1 2019 9:34 AM EDT Tom Popomaronis, Contributor @TPOPOMARONIS
Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire HathawayPaul Morigi | Getty Images Warren Buffett is one of the richest people in the world, but money isn’t a factor when it comes to measuring the quality of his life.
In 2017, when Buffett and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates shared the stage for a talk at Columbia University, one student asked: “Are there any major life lessons that you two have learned about relationships through your personal experiences?”
“Well, it’s a very important question. You will move in the direction of the people that you associate with,” Buffett answered. “So it’s important to associate with people that are better than yourself.”
‘The ultimate test’
Buffett, who just turned 89 on Saturday, August 30th, 2019, has given similar advice in the past.
“Basically, when you get to my age, you’ll really measure your success in life by how many of the people you want to have love you actually do love you,” he said in 2001 during a speech at the University of Georgia.
“I know people who have a lot of money, and they get testimonial dinners and hospital wings named after them. But the truth is that nobody in the world loves them,” Buffett continued. “If you get to my age in life and nobody thinks well of you, I don’t care how big your bank account is — your life is a disaster. That’s the ultimate test of how you have lived your life.”
Choose your life partner wisely
Out of all the people who love you back, the most important person by far, according to Buffett, is your spouse. “I can’t overemphasize how important that is,” he said in his 2017 conversation with Gates.
In the 2017 HBO documentary “Becoming Warren Buffett,” the billionaire said that he owes some of his greatest qualities to his first wife Susan. “I just got very, very, very lucky. I was a lopsided person. And it took a while, but she just stood there with a little watering can and nourished me along and changed me,” he recalled.
In many ways, Susan did help Buffett become the man that he is today: She got him interested in civil rights, feminism, encouraged him to become more of a public figure and to donate more of his money during his lifetime.
If you get to my age in life and nobody thinks well of you, I don’t care how big your bank account is — your life is a disaster. Warren Buffett CEO, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY While they never got divorced, Susan moved away from Omaha and the two remained very close, according to the documentary. She also helped orchestrate Buffett’s relationship with Astrid Menks, whom he married after she died. (Buffett and Astrid tied the knot on August 30, 2006, the same day he turned 76 — and have since been together for 13 years.)
Bill Gates agrees with Buffett
In their conversation at Columbia University, Gates, who has been a longtime friend of Buffett’s, said that “some friends do bring out the best in you, so it’s good to invest in those friendships. It’s really through Melinda and seeing other people that I realized, okay, it’s really worth the investment to have those people, as you’re always there to help them and vice versa.”
Gates also commented on his marriage with Melinda last year, in a Facebook Live talk: There’s a certain type of intensity when you’re raising a family together, said, “but we’re very lucky because we mostly see things the same way. Our goals are very much the same.”
It takes all kinds
It many ways, Buffett’s words of wisdom sounds a lot like the warnings we received from our parents when we were younger about not hanging out with the wrong crowd.
Buffett’s own experience with friendships and love is proof that the people we let into our lives — the people who truly love and care about us — are the ones who push us to live successful, happy and meaningful lives.
Researchers have even found that people who have a strong support system in place (a.k.a. your friends and life partners) are less likely to suffer from depression and social isolation, which has in turn been associated with poorer health outcomes.
That’s more than enough reason to take Buffett’s advice into consideration by reflecting on the strength of your personal relationships by asking yourself questions like: Do the people who care about me really love me back? Do they make me a better person?
As Gates once said, “That’s about as good a metric as you will find.”
Chad OrzelContributor Science
Quantum physics is usually just intimidating from the get-go. It’s kind of weird and can seem counter-intuitive, even for the physicists who deal with it every day. But it’s not incomprehensible. If you’re reading something about quantum physics, there are really six key concepts about it that you should keep in mind. Do that, and you’ll find quantum physics a lot easier to understand.
Everything Is Made Of Waves; Also, Particles
Light as both a particle and a wave. (Image credit: Fabrizio Carbone/EPFL) Light as both a particle and a wave. (Image credit: Fabrizio Carbone/EPFL)
There’s lots of places to start this sort of discussion, and this is as good as any: everything in the universe has both particle and wave nature, at the same time. There’s a line in Greg Bear’s fantasy duology (The Infinity Concerto and The Serpent Mage), where a character describing the basics of magic says “All is waves, with nothing waving, over no distance at all.” I’ve always really liked that as a poetic description of quantum physics– deep down, everything in the universe has wave nature.
Of course, everything in the universe also has particle nature. This seems completely crazy, but is an experimental fact, worked out by a surprisingly familiar process:
(there’s also an animated version of this I did for TED-Ed).
Of course, describing real objects as both particles and waves is necessarily somewhat imprecise. Properly speaking, the objects described by quantum physics are neither particles nor waves, but a third category that shares some properties of waves (a characteristic frequency and wavelength, some spread over space) and some properties of particles (they’re generally countable and can be localized to some degree). This leads to some lively debate within the physics education community about whether it’s really appropriate to talk about light as a particle in intro physics courses; not because there’s any controversy about whether light has some particle nature, but because calling photons “particles” rather than “excitations of a quantum field” might lead to some student misconceptions. I tend not to agree with this, because many of the same concerns could be raised about calling electrons “particles,” but it makes for a reliable source of blog conversations.
This “door number three” nature of quantum objects is reflected in the sometimes confusing language physicists use to talk about quantum phenomena. The Higgs boson was discovered at the Large Hadron Collider as a particle, but you will also hear physicists talk about the “Higgs field” as a delocalized thing filling all of space. This happens because in some circumstances, such as collider experiments, it’s more convenient to discuss excitations of the Higgs field in a way that emphasizes the particle-like characteristics, while in other circumstances, like general discussion of why certain particles have mass, it’s more convenient to discuss the physics in terms of interactions with a universe-filling quantum field. It’s just different language describing the same mathematical object.
Quantum Physics Is Discrete
These oscillations created an image of ″frozen″ light. (Credit: Princeton) These oscillations created an image of “frozen” light. (Credit: Princeton)
It’s right there in the name– the word “quantum” comes from the Latin for “how much” and reflects the fact that quantum models always involve something coming in discrete amounts. The energy contained in a quantum field comes in integer multiples of some fundamental energy. For light, this is associated with the frequency and wavelength of the light– high-frequency, short-wavelength light has a large characteristic energy, which low-frequency, long-wavelength light has a small characteristic energy.
In both cases, though, the total energy contained in a particular light field is an integer multiple of that energy– 1, 2, 14, 137 times– never a weird fraction like one-and-a-half, π, or the square root of two. This property is also seen in the discrete energy levels of atoms, and the energy bands of solids– certain values of energy are allowed, others are not. Atomic clocks work because of the discreteness of quantum physics, using the frequency of light associated with a transition between two allowed states in cesium to keep time at a level requiring the much-discussed “leap second” added last week.
Ultra-precise spectroscopy can also be used to look for things like dark matter, and is part of the motivation for a low-energy fundamental physics institute.
This isn’t always obvious– even some things that are fundamentally quantum, like black-body radiation, appear to involve continuous distributions. But there’s always a kind of granularity to the underlying reality if you dig into the mathematics, and that’s a large part of what leads to the weirdness of the theory.
Quantum Physics Is Probabilistic
(Credit: Graham Barclay/Bloomberg News) (Credit: Graham Barclay/Bloomberg News) One of the most surprising and (historically, at least) controversial aspects of quantum physics is that it’s impossible to predict with certainty the outcome of a single experiment on a quantum system. When physicists predict the outcome of some experiment, the prediction always takes the form of a probability for finding each of the particular possible outcomes, and comparisons between theory and experiment always involve inferring probability distributions from many repeated experiments.
The mathematical description of a quantum system typically takes the form of a “wavefunction,” generally represented in equations by the Greek letter psi: Ψ. There’s a lot of debate about what, exactly, this wavefunction represents, breaking down into two main camps: those who think of the wavefunction as a real physical thing (the jargon term for these is “ontic” theories, leading some witty person to dub their proponents “psi-ontologists”) and those who think of the wavefunction as merely an expression of our knowledge (or lack thereof) regarding the underlying state of a particular quantum object (“epistemic” theories).
In either class of foundational model, the probability of finding an outcome is not given directly by the wavefunction, but by the square of the wavefunction (loosely speaking, anyway; the wavefunction is a complex mathematical object (meaning it involves imaginary numbers like the square root of negative one), and the operation to get probability is slightly more involved, but “square of the wavefunction” is enough to get the basic idea). This is known as the “Born Rule” after German physicist Max Born who first suggested this (in a footnote to a paper in 1926), and strikes some people as an ugly ad hoc addition. There’s an active effort in some parts of the quantum foundations community to find a way to derive the Born rule from a more fundamental principle; to date, none of these have been fully successful, but it generates a lot of interesting science.
This is also the aspect of the theory that leads to things like particles being in multiple states at the same time. All we can predict is probability, and prior to a measurement that determines a particular outcome, the system being measured is in an indeterminate state that mathematically maps to a superposition of all possibilities with different probabilities. Whether you consider this as the system really being in all of the states at once, or just being in one unknown state depends largely on your feelings about ontic versus epistemic models, though these are both subject to constraints from the next item on the list:
Quantum Physics Is Non-Local
A quantum teleportation experiment in action. (Credit: IQOQI/Vienna) A quantum teleportation experiment in action. (Credit: IQOQI/Vienna) The last great contribution Einstein made to physics was not widely recognized as such, mostly because he was wrong. In a 1935 paper with his younger colleagues Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen (the “EPR paper”), Einstein provided a clear mathematical statement of something that had been bothering him for some time, an idea that we now call “entanglement.”
The EPR paper argued that quantum physics allowed the existence of systems where measurements made at widely separated locations could be correlated in ways that suggested the outcome of one was determined by the other. They argued that this meant the measurement outcomes must be determined in advance, by some common factor, because the alternative would require transmitting the result of one measurement to the location of the other at speeds faster than the speed of light. Thus, quantum mechanics must be incomplete, a mere approximation to some deeper theory (a “local hidden variable” theory, one where the results of a particular measurement do not depend on anything farther away from the measurement location than a signal could travel at the speed of light (“local”), but are determined by some factor common to both systems in an entangled pair (the “hidden variable”)).
This was regarded as an odd footnote for about thirty years, as there seemed to be no way to test it, but in the mid-1960′s the Irish physicist John Bell worked out the consequences of the EPR paper in greater detail. Bell showed that you can find circumstances in which quantum mechanics predicts correlations between distant measurements that are stronger than any possible theory of the type preferred by E, P, and R. This was tested experimentally in the mid-1970′s by John Clauser, and a series of experiments by Alain Aspect in the early 1980′s is widely considered to have definitively shown that these entangled systems cannot possibly be explained by any local hidden variable theory.
The most common approach to understanding this result is to say that quantum mechanics is non-local: that the results of measurements made at a particular location can depend on the properties of distant objects in a way that can’t be explained using signals moving at the speed of light. This does not, however, permit the sending of information at speeds exceeding the speed of light, though there have been any number of attempts to find a way to use quantum non-locality to do that. Refuting these has turned out to be a surprisingly productive enterprise– check out David Kaiser’s How the Hippies Saved Physics for more details. Quantum non-locality is also central to the problem of information in evaporating black holes, and the “firewall” controversy that has generated a lot of recent activity. There are even some radical ideas involving a mathematical connection between the entangled particles described in the EPR paper and wormholes.
Quantum Physics Is (Mostly) Very Small
Images of a hydrogen atom as seen through a quantum telescope. (Credit: Stodolna et al. Phys. Rev. Lett.) Images of a hydrogen atom as seen through a quantum telescope. (Credit: Stodolna et al. Phys. Rev. Lett.) Quantum physics has a reputation of being weird because its predictions are dramatically unlike our everyday experience (at least, for humans– the conceit of my book is that it doesn’t seem so weird to dogs). This happens because the effects involved get smaller as objects get larger– if you want to see unambiguously quantum behavior, you basically want to see particles behaving like waves, and the wavelength decreases as the momentum increases. The wavelength of a macroscopic object like a dog walking across the room is so ridiculously tiny that if you expanded everything so that a single atom in the room were the size of the entire Solar System, the dog’s wavelength would be about the size of a single atom within that solar system.
This means that, for the most part, quantum phenomena are confined to the scale of atoms and fundamental particles, where the masses and velocities are small enough for the wavelengths to get big enough to observe directly. There’s an active effort in a bunch of areas, though, to push the size of systems showing quantum effects up to larger sizes. I’ve blogged a bunch about experiments by Markus Arndt’s group showing wave-like behavior in larger and larger molecules, and there are a bunch of groups in “cavity opto-mechanics” trying to use light to slow the motion of chunks of silicon down to the point where the discrete quantum nature of the motion would become clear. There are even some suggestions that it might be possible to do this with suspended mirrors having masses of several grams, which would be amazingly cool.
Quantum Physics Is Not Magic
Comic from ″Surviving the World″ by Dante Shepherd. (http://survivingtheworld.net/Lesson1518.html ) Used with permission. Comic from “Surviving the World” by Dante Shepherd. (http://survivingtheworld.net/Lesson1518.html ) Used with permission. The previous point leads very naturally into this one: as weird as it may seem, quantum physics is most emphatically not magic. The things it predicts are strange by the standards of everyday physics, but they are rigorously constrained by well-understood mathematical rules and principles.
So, if somebody comes up to you with a “quantum” idea that seems too good to be true– free energy, mystical healing powers, impossible space drives– it almost certainly is. That doesn’t mean we can’t use quantum physics to do amazing things– you can find some really cool physics in mundane technology– but those things stay well within the boundaries of the laws of thermodynamics and just basic common sense.
38 josefslerka 3 hrs 7
https://pyscenedetect.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reference/command-line-params/
Unable to load the content https://pyscenedetect.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reference/command-line-params/
73 chsasank 16 hrs 11
https://chsasank.github.io/deep-learning-image-features.html
Unable to load the content https://chsasank.github.io/deep-learning-image-features.html
110 astrofinch 6 hrs 65
Unable to load the content https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FCXCXigp7byv2dM8D/how-to-make-billions-of-dollars-reducing-loneliness
早前瑪麗說到日本業主一旦簽下租約，在約滿後，只要租客有意續租，業主不能拒絕，也不能加租，嚇怕了不少有意在日本置業的朋友，但事實上，除非你的物業是位於黃金地段的超級筍盤，否則也不必太擔心租客會很「長情」。
日本法律明文規定，租客有安居權，只要他準時交租，業主是不可以不續租的，至於租金，不是不可加，而是必須經雙方同意，並且要在約滿前6個月先徵得租客同意．如果租客不同意的話，業主就必須證明其物業的租金低於合理水平，才可以向有關部門申請加租。
業主收樓甚艱難
何謂合理水平？即是同區內，樓齡面積座向等都相近的物業的平均租金，以6萬（日圓．下同）平均月租為例，若只低1萬或以下，不必申請了，通常都不受理；低1萬至2萬的話，機會也不太大，而且租客還有上訴權，所以，如果租金只差兩三成的話，業主通常也算數，免得蝕訴訟費。
加租那麼麻煩，若以自住為由要求租客搬出可以嗎？答案是更難。有物業代理形容，日本業主要收樓（這裏指不賠償的情況下收回筍盤）和八級大地震出現的機會差不多。
因為業主不單要向有關當局證明自己一無所有（無任何物業、無現金、無穩定工作）外，還要證明所有直系親屬（包括父母、配偶、子女）都沒有物業、現金和工作，如果連兄弟姊妹也都同樣三無，成功的機會就更大了。不過，在日本要找這樣的三無家庭頗有難度。
大家可能問，瑪麗既然說日本房屋法例完善，但為什麼看起來好像業主比較「蝕底」？其實各處鄉村各處例，法例或多或少都反映了當地居民的生活習慣。大多數日本人對居住環境都有要求，習慣每隔一段日子便要粉飾居所，改善生活質素。所以，在日本，沒有裝潢的單位幾乎沒有人會租住，有些租客甚至要求馬桶要有清潔公司的封條，證明清潔後沒有人使用過，一般租客入住2至6年後就會嫌單位太舊，改而轉租新裝潢的單位。除非該單位是超級筍盤，租金又超值，租客才可能會忍受舊裝潢（租客是不可自行裝潢單位的）也要繼續住下去，所以，買到筍盤，有幸有不幸。
退租要付清潔費
法律要求租客離開時還原單位，即是付清潔費，不成文規定是一個月的租金，因此業主不必歸還之前租客預付的月租訂金。租客終止租約，業主其實也有一定損失，業主必須重新裝修單位，即使上手租客住得企理乾淨，又有一個月租金作清潔費，但也未必足夠；萬一遇上污糟貓就慘了，雖然可以法律訴訟要求對方付差額，但訴訟費隨時比這個差額還要高，更要加上裝修期間不能租出或找不到租客的租金損失。
所以，如果租客續租，業主可以省回裝修費，還可以收到相等半個月租金作續租禮金，對業主來說仍然划算，所以說，日本法律對業主與租客雙方都有一定保障。
撰文 : 瑪麗
大陸有一網文引法國作家大仲馬的話：「如果你渴望得到某樣東西，你得讓它自由，如果它還回到你身邊，它就屬於你，如果它不會回來，你就從未擁有過它。」然後網文說：「如果現在把籬笆撤了，可能自己圈着的豬都會跑光，連自己養的豬都未擁有過，又何談擁有過人？而香港人可是經歷過做人的生活，你讓一個已經習慣做人的香港人誤入籬笆，即便天天請他們吃大餐，他們照樣會把籬笆給砸了，帶着他們的女人和狗浪跡天涯。
最近曾經在本欄多次談到人工智能（或曰機器智能），最近有機會參加了不少有關人工智能的會議與討論，又有一些新的看法，在這裏與讀者分享。
一談到未來，西方尤其是美國，就會想到科技。甚至有些觀點，認為未來就是科技，科技就是未來。而最近一年左右，人們又似乎把對於科技的注意，聚焦在人工智能。以AI（人工智能）為題的會議、文章、項目數不勝數。有些本來只不過與AI有點關係的如VR（虛擬技術）、大數據、物聯網……，也通通掛在AI賬上。不過也無所謂啦，反正許多科技的應用，是互相滲透，難以分割的。
人工智能進入教育了嗎？
人工智能進入教育領域，非常迅猛。因為一個國際項目，最近對於AI在教育領域的出現，作了一點掃描，下面是一些初步的觀察。
A. 把AI作為未來需要的一門知識來學習
一、AI作為課程。也就是把AI作為一個科目，讓學校可以有系統地向學生傳授。已經有科技公司，編寫了頗為完整的AI課本，供學校使用。在內地，也的確有些城市，在學校裏設立了AI課，作為正規的科目。
二、把與AI有關的原理或者知識，融入現存的科目裏面。例如把編程（coding）有關的原理，融入到數學學習裏面。不過，目前這似乎只是一種設想，真正成事的，還在小範圍的試驗階段。
三、通過應用AI，學習AI。最典型的是在小學做種種機器人的遊戲、設計、應用、剖析、創造。這在香港的小學非常普遍。對於通過機器人的活動學習AI，有不同的意見。有科學家不認為這是學習AI，也有覺得這才是學習AI的正途。這裏面有對於「學習」這個概念有不同的理解，也有負責的老師會有不同的認識、闡釋與設計。
B. AI應用於教育
四、AI應用於教育行政、學校管理。這方面嚴格來說，是在管理領域的應用。
五、AI用於改善教學環境和教學資源
促進學習個人化與個別化。人類學習本來是在個別的人腦裏面各自發生的，我們的教育制度，把學生的學習過程劃一化了，而且對他們的學習成果，也是劃一的期望。這是違反人類學習規律的，但是進入工業社會，為社會培養各級各類人力資源的思維成了主流教育觀念，於是社會勞動力的需求，掩蓋了學生學習的個別性。人工智能，可以把學生從劃一化的過程（時間和空間）中釋放出來，也就是促進個別化學習。
幫助人類了解自己的學習過程。人工智能可以把學生的學習過程從頭到尾紀錄下來，讓學生可以自我反饋，讓教師可以觀察從而改進教學，也讓研究人員可以追溯學生的學習進程和特點，可以因此產生有關學生學習的大數據，從中提煉出學生學習的規律。如果沒有人工智能，只能靠教師的經驗，觀顏察色，加上推測，從而改進自己的教學。學生也可以對於自己的學習過程，毫無認識。
人工智能可以減輕教師的工作量。例如很多人工智能的設計，在於減輕教師的批改工作量。這屬於替代人類勞動的一部分。
人工智能若與虛擬技術結合，可以大幅度增加學生的經歷。原來許多受地理距離和歷史時代隔絕的情景，都可以通過科技的創造，讓它們在學生的觀感中再現。也可以通過科技，縮短非常長的和放長非常短的物理或生物過程，以供肉眼觀察。
人工智能會否帶來消極影響？
但是人工智能這些積極的作用，又會帶來一些問題，不可不注意。
第一、人工智能的技術發展，可以允許而且要求對學生有精準的觀察、量度與干預。這種精確度，是教師無法達到的。問題是，教育的過程，精準一定是方向嗎？精準的教學就是優質的教學嗎？精準，是教師追求的嗎？
學生的學習過程，往往帶有不完整、不完美、不精確的部分，有經驗的教師，懂得如何在大體正確的過程中，允許學生有缺陷；除非如此，就難以要求學生有學習的積極性。教師看到一名學生的發展大方向，而不一定「精準」地計較學生的每一個細節。
第二、假如把注意力放在精準化，會不會把一些過時的、保守的元素加以固化了。例如假如不斷地研究考試的精準化，會不會結果把考試固化了。這個研究過程，技術上是沒有過錯的，問題是，對於考試改革的大方向，是促進了，還是固化了？
第三、人工智能既然是科技，當然講究客觀性。在不少談論中，人們都會不約而同地提到傳統教學裏面教師的人性、情感一面。這些主觀因素，往往是學生是否成功的關鍵。老練的教師，會從許多方面綜合看每一名學生，而不是分析性地把學生看成是一堆指標的合成。
第四、科技的精準性，往往需要觀察每一名學生的「精準」表現。現在中國內地已經出現了全面監察學生表現的課堂，包括學生的面部表情，用以觀察學生的情緒。如此，在其他社會就不一定行得通，因為涉及私隱。
第五、教師在教學的過程中，往往是在不經意之中，點點滴滴不斷在改善的；裏面也會有很多點滴創新，幾乎無日無之。而改進與創新的天地是無窮無盡的，要機器人做到這一點，是否有點過分？
第六、再說，與人工智能幾乎是同步發展的虛擬技術。假如我們只是強調虛擬的經歷可以替代現實的經歷，會不會學生就更加不必去接觸現實的社會和自然界了？看過一些設計，讓學生進入虛擬的自然界。是否學生將來就不需要真正接觸自然界？
科技的延伸還是教育的需要？
以上幾點，只是不成熟的觀察。背後也許存在四類問題。
第一類問題：現在技術與教育的結合，是技術作主導，是科技界主動進入教育。
教育界覺得有需要而要求引入科學技術的，鮮見（去年介紹的上海劉京海的《學程包》，是少數的特例之一）。因此，往往是技術人員很有熱情去拓寬技術的應用，而教育界只是被動地接受；又或者教育界覺得這是新穎的東西，是向前發展的方向，因此必須努力追上，而沒有細想是否符合學生學習的需要。
第二類問題：從教育界本身看，前述的問題，似乎也暴露了目前教育、課程、教學的前瞻方向不夠明確。
環顧一下，全球來說，似乎研究宏觀政策與規劃的比較多，但是對於微觀的教育元素，例如課堂教學、學習經歷、考試測評，下一步應該如何走，甚少前瞻性的討論。沒有強烈的意願，甚至沒有摸索的方向，因而也沒有明確的界線，去辨清到底哪些技術是促進了教育的，哪些其實只會讓教育原地踏步，甚至妨礙前進。
第三類問題：又回歸到本欄不斷倡議的——要發展學習科學。
不論是教育界還是技術界，科技用於教育，歸根到柢是為了學生的學習。假如我們對於學生的學習，只是想當然的假設，或者是未經思考的猜想，那技術的發展，肯定不會使教育往前走。目前看到的AI在教育的應用，絕大部分（也許沒有誇張）只是按照知識內容的邏輯結構設計程序。知識的邏輯流程，與學生的學習流程，不是同一回事。
第四類問題，也是一個普遍的問題：機器人能否代替教師。
在幼兒階段，似乎肯定不可能，因為人與人之間賴以互相呼應的鏡像腦細胞，不存在於機器之中。近來參加不少有關科技的會議與討論，不禁感到，機器是否會代替人這個問題，在科技界好像是不言而喻的、理所當然的。真的嗎？人類為什麼打算用機器來取代自己？其實也許沒有人問過這個問題。也許這是一個盲目的假設。
A man who destroyed his multimillion dollar company in 10 seconds (2018) 780 dragontamer 1 day 468 https://thehustle.co/gerald-ratners-billion-dollar-speech news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20821389 Unable to load the content https://thehustle.co/gerald-ratners-billion-dollar-speech
翻譯難，說話難，讀準年報管理層的話更難，讀出年報裏管理層不想你知道的更是難上加難。簡單一句：My hands strayed，梁實秋譯作「我的雙手在四處亂摸」，徐志摩卻譯作「我的雙手迷失了」，用字遣詞當然重要。再來一句「我喜歡的女孩在別人懷裏」，驟聽好像很可憐，但如說「我喜歡別人懷裏的女孩」，聽落就很欠揍，但兩者還不是同一回事？沒有公司管理層不賣花讚花香的，如何聽出公司的真實情況，是投資者必修的一課。
如地產公司現在有兩個商場項目，未來5年將推出10個新項目。簡單一算，即公司規模將變大5倍，但又有誰保證，營業額增長速度，定是和項目多少成正比？
管理層說的單位是「項目」，但不同項目的規模各有不同，城市、地段又不同，出租率又不同，怎能以直線思維想當然地簡單估算？
學習讀準管理層的話
更甚者（管理層沒說的），是大量項目開工，未來幾年將有龐大資本開支，不趁高批股，也要大量借貸，甚至減少派息，股價隨時有幾年沒好表現。管理層說的話，你能真切的聽懂嗎？
又如燃氣股，近年大力開展農村業務，差不多期期業績都能錄得翻倍增長，管理層總是大書特書，但相關業務比重，可能只佔營業額一成也沒有。有些更是買回來的增長，去年同期沒有的。不要只聽管理層說，還要自己細心思考。到哪天能準確讀出管理層的弦外之音，那麼，你已能算是踏進投資之門了。
上市公司管理層不能公然說謊，卻可不用說出事實之全部，用字遣詞的細微差別到底有多大？舉例說，你能說出complete和finish的分別嗎？驟眼看好像無大分別，用起來時意思卻可以差天共地：如你娶了個好太太，你的人生大概就能算是complete了；相反，娶了個壞太太，人生大概就是finished了。假若太太發現你和其他女人一起，一切大概會是completely finished；然後她狠狠地走去shopping，你的荷包大概就會是finished completely了。
管理層說爭取營業額3年內翻一番，股東可能會很高興；但管理層說的是營業額，投資者想的是盈利和分紅，兩者可以風馬牛不相及。
找出他不想你知道的
即使盈利上漲又如何？某家垃圾發電環保企業，營業額和盈利每年雙位數上升，但股價就是水波不興，因為起電廠需要巨大前期開支，現金年年淨流出，根本沒錢分紅，但這些從來不會主動說，你問到現金流嗎？管理層只會打個哈哈。
專業的上市公司管理層都經過嚴格訓練，說話都經過排練，你必須聽懂他想你知道的，然後理解為何他想你知道，並找出他不想你知道的，那看似無差別但極為重要的弦外之音。
如何能夠做到？看多了便會分辨，你必須具備能一眼看到底的能力，找出事物的真實和本質，再培養對核心信念的絕對堅持。慢慢你便會知道什麼是好，和哪種股票最適合你。
很難嗎？投資從來不易。但看到自己慢慢進步，其實很有趣。當然，看到心儀股份不斷創新高，更為有趣。
生活化價值投資．之三
筆者為證監會9號業務持牌人
hcl.hkej@gmail.com
（編者按：郝承林最新著作《致富新世代3──你也可以的穩健發財派》現已發售）
歡迎訂購：實體書、電子書
27 shadykiller 3 hrs 18
https://blog.gojekengineering.com/how-we-manage-a-million-push-notifications-an-hour-549a1e3ca2c2
Unable to load the content https://blog.gojekengineering.com/how-we-manage-a-million-push-notifications-an-hour-549a1e3ca2c2
一百年來由中東到遠東，由中亞到非洲，大規模的種族屠殺發生得太多，令西方文明社會也漸覺麻木，以致無人再在關鍵時候敲響警鐘。
一七五五年，里斯本大地震，死亡數萬人，其時澳洲處於思想啟蒙時代，知識分子對屍橫遍野的景象，大感震動。康德大慟，連寫三篇文章，講述地震災劫。伏爾泰和盧梭紛紛跟隨。歐洲各國徵求悼文，普魯士取消了幾個月之後的嘉年華。 那一年歌德六歲，歐洲人人在談論大地震，此一慘劇成為他初識人事窺世界的第一扇窗口。那是一個有情的世代，因為有感覺，所以悲哀，所以產生一代偉大的哲學家。
Are psychiatrists really ready for the AI revolution? Machine learning can help manage a wide range of mental health disorders. But the psychiatric profession is worryingly unprepared for this change, according to a global survey. by Emerging Technology from the arXiv Aug 27, 2019 Person sitting on couch Sign up for The Download — your daily dose of what's up in emerging technology
Also stay updated on MIT Technology Review initiatives and events?YesNo
The World Health Organization estimates that up to 15% of the population experiences mental health disorders. That has significant consequences. For example, suicide is the second- or third-leading cause of death for young people in most countries. And as the population ages, the rate of dementia is set to triple over the coming decades.
At the same time, access to mental health professionals is sorely lacking in many parts of the world, particularly in low-income countries. India, for example, has a population of 1.3 billion served by only 9,000 psychiatrists.
But technological advances can help. Smartphones and wearable sensors offer people the ability to monitor themselves and to benefit from the way deep learning can analyze the data. Indeed, these techniques are already being used to detect the changes in mood that indicate bipolar disorder or to detect people at risk of depression.
So the scene is set for artificial intelligence to become a disruptive force in psychiatry. Indeed, that’s exactly what many observers predict.
But what of psychiatrists themselves? These professionals will have to play a key role in any change that artificial intelligence brings to the field. So their view ought to be a useful indicator of its potential.
Enter Murali Doraiswamy at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina, and couple of colleagues. This team has surveyed psychiatrists around the world to find out how they view machine intelligence and its likely impact on mental health care.
“To our knowledge, this is the first global survey to seek the opinions of physicians on the impact of autonomous artificial intelligence/machine learning on the future of psychiatry,” say the team. Curiously, the results appear to say more about psychiatrists than about the state of technological readiness or its potential.
The team’s method was straightforward. The researchers randomly chose a sample of 750 professional psychiatrists registered with an online database of over 800,000 health-care professionals around the world, including 22 countries in North and South America, Europe, and Asia; 30% were women and two-thirds were white.
The respondents clearly felt that machines could never learn some skills. “An overwhelming majority (83 per cent) of respondents felt it unlikely that future technology would ever be able to provide empathic care as well as or better than the average psychiatrist,” say Doraiswamy and colleagues. Interestingly, a survey of family physicians in the UK showed they had a similar view.
The group was also divided on the risks that artificial intelligence might pose. “Only 23 per cent of women predicted that the benefits of AI would outweigh the possible risks compared to 41 per cent of men,” say Doraiswamy and colleagues.
But they think they know why. “The gender differences in AI risk perception may be commensurate with a large body of findings that women are more risk averse than men,” they say.
The most interesting results are in the way respondents feel machine intelligence will change their jobs. Three-quarters of them thought that artificial intelligence will play an important role in managing data, such as medical records. And about half thought it would fully replace human physicians when it comes to synthesizing information to reach diagnoses.
Other areas of health care are already experiencing such benefits. Machine-learning techniques can outperform radiologists and pathologists in in certain circumstances. This ability to reach more accurate diagnoses has huge implications for patient treatment and safety.
And yet only half the psychiatrists felt that artificial intelligence would substantially change their jobs (presumably the same half who think AI can better diagnose conditions than humans). Perhaps predictably, less than 4% thought AI could replace human psychiatrists completely.
Doraiswamy and colleagues have a potential explanation for this. “Doctors may be overvaluing their skills and/or underestimating the rapid pace of progress in intelligent technologies,” they say.
Either way, that has important implications for this profession. Earlier this year, the World Economic Forum published a report called “Empowering 8 Billion Minds,” which highlighted the growing burden of mental illness around the world.
The report pointed out that apps focused on mental health are among the fastest-growing sectors in the global digital health market. These kinds of apps could make a big difference. But if this survey is to be believed, psychiatrists around the world are broadly unprepared for the changes to come.
Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1907.12386 : Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Psychiatry: Insights from a Global Physician Survey