Month: July 2022

1. the word pairs（搭配）are way redundant. Apart from “一只手套”、”一杯啤酒” that many foreigners complain about, there are much more than that. You can say “形成全面和立体的认识” rather than “形成感性和立体的认识”. There are so many fixed pairs of this kind. You take too much time merely to avoid quirky usage. I would rather write in English. If you say something goes down, two words “mitigate” and “alleviate” would be fairly enough. There are much complicated cases in the Chinese language, which makes a pain in the ass. I don’t feel the beauty in it at all. It’s bare burden.
2. The language does not have explicit form differences between nouns and verbs. For example, “我发现了AAA与BBB的不同”。Is “不同” an adjective? Yes, it is and it’s a wrong usage. Yet the sentense is widely used in everyday communications. It should be “我发现了AAA与BBB的差异”, which sound weird and needs more time to adjust. How can a language permit so many wrong sentences in its oral system? It should be guided with a specification published officially for what is a standard Chinese usage. Otherwise sooner or later the wrong oral system will become the right one as more and more people accept the wrong usage.
3. No attributive clause native in the language. If you write short sentences, it would be wierd. But if you write long sentences, there is no phrases like “which xxx”. And you have to balance the “weight” of each clauses.
4. Too much order issues. For example, “AAAA 对经营业绩差公司的BBBB(学术概念)减弱作用更显著” should be changed to “对经营业绩差的公司，AAAA 对BBBB(学术概念)的减弱作用更显著”.
5. The casual usage of the language makes it very common to see sentences like “听XXX的谈话，逻辑性还是挺强的，容易出金句”. If we strip the subject of the sentence, we found that “逻辑性出金句”. It is really bullshit for a language being widely misused like that. And it is our everyday usage!

Types of mixed usage of languages:

Firstly, Chinese structures with English adjectives or English nouns that is hard to find bare alternative in Chinese. For example, “这个上司很demanding”, “他不是一个很有initiative的人” and “MBAs主要教授pitch skills.”

Secondly, English structures with Chinese simple words. The distinguishing point is that you see the speaker thinks in English and replaces the words that is easiest to deal with to Chinese alternatives. For example, “有一个点子找到了我” or “有一个点子钻进了我的脑袋”. The sentense is terribly quirky in Chinese itself, whereas you may feel more comfortable saying “an idea comes to me/an idea blows my mind”. Another example: “他不是一个很容易get along with的人”.

These 2 types varies with the original thinking language.

Minhong Yu said, whereas the most brilliant brains switched from official department to private startups in the 1980s, it is the other way around nowadays. Official rank orientation(hereinafter the ORO issue) in career path option is prominent in China. Official rank orientation appears in countries where regions develop differently, especially countries with a lot of mountains and dialects. If you travel around the US, you won’t encounter an accent issue. The biggest diference is probably between the boston accent and the standard American one. There are a lot of mountains in Japan and the accent difference between Kansai accent（関西） and Kanto accent（関東）is significant. That’s one of the reasons why the ORO issue in Japan is more severe than one in the US. And cantonese is by no means comprehensible for mandarin speakers without specific training, not to mention the Hokkien dialect（閩南語） and many minority dialects across the country. That’s why the ORO issue is even more cursed in China.

The ORO issue is a big one for it reduces the ecomomic efficiency and limits innovation potential. Entrepreneurs have to spend bunch of time to treat the high rank officers so not as much time for product developments. That is politics costs. A lot of mega corporations have conflicts inside but Chinese ones have extra waste outside apart from the devastating enough inside ones. That’s a thing I feel the country still runs on its aricultural mechanism which lasts for thousands of years.

Another issue that perplexes the country is the parents in China are keen on having a baby. The economic fuel no longer relies on bare number of population. It is no more the case yet many people are not aware of that. Maybe it comes from the hunger for population resources in an aricultural society. Maybe the Chinese people is not productive physically after 35 years old for body characteristics. I don’t know. Many US and European couples enbrace their second marriage and still got 2 babies after the age of 40. It’s wierd to push to have babies before 35 or 30. That’s the thing I cannot possibly understand. What I do feel is that the country runs on its aricultural mechanism for the people’s mindset whereas the capitalism takes over the developed part. For instance, the Internet tycoons calls for rigid copyright standard in the four mega cities whereas copyleft scenerios prevail in most regions of the country. The country is way devoloping and time is needed for people to change. It’s sad that ORO regains the mainstrean.

Well, I thinks of a possible reason for the phenomenon Minhong Yu mentioned. The ORO mechanism behaves ineffectively while kindly. The capitalism behaves effectively but brutally. People found that there is not much blue occean opportunities for nuts and it is never an amusing thing around relentless businesses without any preparations. They have not acquired enough initiative methodology to start with and the cruelty is the only consequence. The terrible fame for ruthless businesses intimidates people and they escape back to the state payroll that is familiar with for decades. We are in a stage where the bold tries best to update technologies to catch up with developed countries. Imtimidated (and idling) big brains in the state department may hold back the process would they get jealous.

Python is merely a bash script. It fixes the missing package management functionality of the c lang and keeps strong compatibility to c. It becomes widespread popular for the ability to let ordinary users to import machine learning packages written by data scientists, which is a better bash script in broad sense.

I wonder why there are so many dumb-asses who love Python. There is no reason to love a general purpose bash script indeed. Many people say there is not much differences among languages. Indeed. There are only 2 fundamental differences: whether permits multiple levels of pointers, and whether includes oop. With the former one, you are capable of using the so called tr technique to utilize a algorithm with low level high efficency. And with oop, one is capable of producing industralized code with easy collaborations.  Out-of-the-box cocurrency is also important that is built in golang.(while garbage collections are not.) Python has nothing of a feature for writing sustainable code. It is rubbish except for distribute packages written by c. No one will blame a bash script for being rubbish. They are all rubbish after all.

There are 4 kinds of cooperations: a good heart with good routine, a good heart with bad routine, a bad heart with good routine, and a bad heart with bad routine. The best cooperations between an advisor and his student must be a bad heart with a good routine. Why is that? If the advisor only has good heart, he may not benefit at all and will not do that in the sustainable way. A good relationship(one for work, not for family) should be to take advantage of the student (a bad heart) and with a good routine, the student learns much about all the knowledge that is not accessible in the open world.

Why the idea came to me is because my advisor once said he smashed 3 mobile phones of his kid. That’s a good heart at its least, in vain at its best. The result will not prevail the condition where the father does not love his kid at all, whereas intriguing his kid’s other interests and restraining the usage of mobile phone by means of setting up the wireless router. A good result has nothing to do with a good heart and comes merely from a scientific way.