Scott Adams 描述了他的 Affirmation（自我肯定）实践，探究了它的可行性以及背后可能的解释，最后给了一些建议。

我觉得还挺值得尝试的，毕竟不需要投入太多的精力，还有潜在的高回报。其中的难点是真的每天都去做，并且自己内心深处相信这个目标的可达成性和达成的必要性。

people who expect luck have a more powerful ability to notice opportunities in their environment. Optimistic people’s field of perception is literally greater. And the best part is he discovered that when you train people to expect luck, their field of perception increases accordingly. I think part of the mystery of affirmations has to do with the fact that it improves your ability to notice an opportunity.

那些期待好运的人往往具备更强的能力去发现环境中的机会。乐观者的感知范围确实更广。而最令人兴奋的是，他发现，当你训练人们去期待好运时，他们的感知范围也会随之扩大。我认为，肯定语的神秘之处在于它能增强你发现机会的能力。

Writing affirmations also helps you focus on your goal, moving them from wishful thinking to something in which you are willing to invest yourself.

撰写肯定语不仅能帮助你专注于目标，还能将它们从一厢情愿的想法转变为你愿意付诸行动的实际计划。

In effect, you are brainwashing yourself, and this might help you get through the tough patches that come with pursuing ambitious goals. When I started Dilbert, I didn’t take a day off for ten years. You only work that hard if you fully expect something good to come from it. I did.

实际上，这种自我洗脑可能会帮助你度过追求雄心勃勃目标时的艰难阶段。当我开始创作《迪尔伯特》时，我连续十年没有休息过一天。只有当你完全相信努力会带来回报时，才会如此拼命。我做到了。

Since the publication of The Dilbert Future, I’ve received thousands of e-mails from people recounting their own experiences with affirmations. Most people seem to be amazed at how well they worked. I heard all kinds of stories of people changing careers, marrying the person of their dreams, making money, and starting businesses. I also heard stories from people who claimed affirmations didn’t work for them, but the failure stories were the minority. To be fair, the people who had success were more likely to get excited and write to me about it, so the most that I can conclude is that lots of people BELIEVE affirmations worked for them.

自《呆伯特的未来》问世以来，我收到了成千上万封电子邮件，分享人们使用肯定语的亲身经历。大多数人似乎对其效果感到惊奇不已。我听到了各种各样的故事，有人因此改变了职业，有人嫁给了梦中情人，有人赚到了钱，有人创办了企业。当然，也有人表示肯定语对他们无效，但失败的故事只是少数。公平地说，成功的人更可能因激动而写信给我，因此我最多只能得出结论：很多人相信肯定语对他们有效。

I don’t know how long you should try affirmations before concluding that they don’t work for you. But trying it for less than six months probably doesn’t give it a chance.

我不确定你需要尝试肯定语多长时间才能判断它们是否对你有效。然而，若尝试时间少于六个月，可能并不足以见效。

Affirmations have not worked every time for me. But the few times they did not work, I must say I wasn’t fully invested in the objective. For example, there are a few cases where if I had achieved an objective it would have caused a lifestyle change that wasn’t entirely positive.

肯定语并非每次都对我奏效。然而，在那些少数无效的情况下，我必须承认自己并未全心投入。例如，有些情况下，如果我达成了某个目标，它会引发一种并不完全积极的生活方式改变。

Scott Adams 关于 Career 的一些建议，其中的要点是不要尝试做到某个领域的最顶尖（如果有这个能力，也不需要职业规划的建议了），而是在少数几件事上做到 Top Tier（前 25%），然后将它们结合起来成为你的独特能力。

一些基础又百搭的技能（比如沟通、商业、演讲）可以当作其中一或几项进行有意识地提升，然后再加上自己最喜欢做的事就有多项了。

if you want something extraordinary, you have two paths:

1. Become the best at one specific thing.
2. Become very good (top 25%) at two or more things.

The second strategy is fairly easy. Everyone has at least a few areas in which they could be in the top 25% with some effort. In my case, I can draw better than most people, but I’m hardly an artist. And I’m not any funnier than the average standup comedian who never makes it big, but I’m funnier than most people. The magic is that few people can draw well and write jokes. It’s the combination of the two that makes what I do so rare. And when you add in my business background, suddenly I had a topic that few cartoonists could hope to understand without living it.

At least one of the skills in your mixture should involve communication, either written or verbal. And it could be as simple as learning how to sell more effectively than 75% of the world. That’s one. Now add to that whatever your passion is, and you have two, because that’s the thing you’ll easily put enough energy into to reach the top 25%. If you have an aptitude for a third skill, perhaps business or public speaking, develop that too.

被 claude 生成的代码坑到了···

const { contextBridge, ipcRenderer } = require('electron');

contextBridge.exposeInMainWorld('electron', {
  ipcRenderer: {
    send: (channel, ...args) => {
      ipcRenderer.send(channel, ...args);
    },
    on: (channel, func) => {
      ipcRenderer.on(channel, (event, ...args) => func(...args));
    },
    removeListener: (channel, func) => {
      // 这能 remove 才怪···
      ipcRenderer.removeListener(channel, func);
    }
  }
});

一个观察，不一定对

LoveFrom (Jony Ive's Studio) 与 Monty 合作的官网，动画效果非常细致，熊的头部还会响应鼠标的位置，有 Pixar 那味了。

PS: 装了 AD Block 插件的可能会显示空白，看起来是因为 sentry 请求被 block 的缘故。

这个域名过于霸气了···

PS: 1.1.1.1 也会 direct 到这个域名

要衡量自己的价值，可以试想人们愿意花多少钱来赢得与你共进晚餐的机会

黄峥写了篇文章讲了他的中学和大学，除了自身的硬实力外，还得感谢小学校长，更要感谢家长，没有对他进行过多干预。

从小与牛人朝夕相处，受顶级的教育，打开视野，与外国友人深度交流，这些都为他的未来之路埋下了种子。可能是个偏见，但我觉得学好英语这事很重要，越早越好。

它是当时浙江省唯一一所在小学升初中时就可以全省自主招生的学校，其他初中都是就近入学的，所以它能够在省内垄断性地挑选小学毕业生。另外，它是六年一贯制，初中升高中是只出不进的。它保送大学的比例也非常高，每年都是在80％以上，所以进了这个中学也就几乎等于进了大学。老师的教学受高考的影响也就相对较小，很多时候，老师都是"自己发挥"。记得我们还有好些节课在看美国大片（当时好像美国大片是鲜有在国内影院上映的）。

160 人里也有不少是官二代和富二代。初一开始就是强制住校的，每天从晨跑到晚自习，到睡觉都在一起。大家的交流和互相影响比其他中学要大得多，互相之间的关系也比较close。12岁到18岁这6年，让我们这一小群人互相影响形成了和其他中学的人不太一样的价值观和世界观。相比于其他中学，我们接受西方文化影响更早，程度也更深，比例更大。我们中的相当部分，比其他同龄人要更为liberal一些。

田忌赛马，能在整体资源劣势的情况下创造出局部的优势，进而有机会获得整个"战役"的胜利。由此，平凡人可以成就非凡事。

我的中学和大学总体来说是幸运而充实的，但也有一个不小的遗憾，那就是自己目标导向太明确，在追求第一上，在努力做一个好学生上浪费了过多的时间，损失了很多逆反，捣蛋，纯粹享受青春的时光。"60分万岁是个好哲学" 是我在很多年后才慢慢悟到的。

钱是工具，不是目的。

-- 黄峥

If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh or they will kill you

-- Oscar Wilde

This is the most detailed and sincere "About Me" page I've ever seen. Just viewing this page makes me want to meet him and learn from him.

I imagine my time as worth $1000 an hour, and ask myself what’s worth $1000?

-- Derek Sivers

胖桌面端，瘦移动端

想象有一群人在爬一座塔，爬得越高越厉害，你也不知道为啥要爬这座塔，但有人跟你一起玩这个游戏，让你有了想取胜的欲望，同时与他们的联接也能带来安全感，满足一定的社交需求。

但当你越爬越累，发现自己并不喜欢这个游戏时，问题就来了。下去吧，不知道去哪里，还会丢失好不容易积攒的高度，继续游戏吧，又很难再往上走，于是就开始了内耗。

像这类对将来具有重要性，但在选择时未经仔细审视（比如随大流）的事，可以采用这篇文章中的做法，给自己一段时间，仔细把这个问题想清楚，然后就按照这个结果来做。

When multiple people are striving towards a shared goal, they often rank themselves by progress within their peer group. This was my mistake — I swapped an absolute goal (figuring out how bits of nature work) with a relative one (scoring higher on tests than my classmates). Later, when I found myself unhappy, I couldn’t leave without feeling like I’d lost something. That social capital sunk cost was the first part of the trap I found myself in.

当多人共同努力追求一个共同目标时，他们常常会根据在同伴群体中的进展情况来对自己进行排名。这是我的错误 —— 我将一个绝对目标（弄清自然界的运作方式）换成了一个相对目标（在考试中得分高于同学）。后来，当我发现自己不开心时，我无法离开，因为那样会让我觉得自己失去了什么。那种社会资本的沉没成本是我困境的开端。

I’d never given physics much thought at all before my senior year in high school — but once I was surrounded by other physics students, competing for the same pool of grades and research positions, I could think of little else. This inherited desire was unchecked because I had no life outside of academics — no fixed reference point. Although quitting would have made me happier, I felt like I had nowhere to quit to.

在高中最后一年之前，我从未认真考虑过物理。然而，当我被其他物理学生包围，大家在同一个成绩和研究职位的池子里竞争时，我几乎无法思考其他事情。这种继承而来的欲望没有受到任何限制，因为除了学术之外，我没有其他生活——没有固定的参照点。尽管退出可能会让我更快乐，但我却觉得无处可退。

That’s the mimetic trap in a nutshell: it hurts to leave, and there’s nowhere to go. It decouples the social reward signal from the rest of objective reality — you can spend years ascending ranks in a hierarchy without producing anything that the rest of humanity finds valuable. If you value the process itself, that’s fine. I didn’t. Cowardice kept me from acting on this, and after a while I came to believe I had to succeed in this field I’d fallen into essentially by chance.

这就是所谓的模仿陷阱：离开会让人痛苦，但又无处可去。它将社会奖励信号与客观现实脱节——你可以在一个等级体系中花费数年时间往上爬，却没有产生任何对人类有价值的东西。如果你重视这个过程本身，那倒也无妨。但我并不这样认为。懦弱让我无法采取行动，久而久之，我开始相信我必须在这个我几乎是偶然进入的领域中取得成功。

You have an obligation to use yourself well, your time is valuable, and there are right and wrong ways to spend it.

你有责任善用自己，时间宝贵，使用时间有对错之分。

The open secret of real success is to throw your whole personality into your problem.

-- George Polya - How to Solve it

当人们选择性收集或回忆信息时，又或带有偏见地解读信息时，他们便展现了确认偏误。这种偏见尤其显见于带有强烈情绪的问题和传统观念上。

比如对「吸烟」持无所谓态度的人会拿出「邓小平也吸烟，人家照样活了 90 多」这套说辞，而反对「吸烟」的更是可以举出一堆吸烟有害健康的例子。

要判断自己是否存在这个问题，得看自己是否能以平常心对待对立观点。

这篇文章讲的是：为什么人们总是以非最优化的方式去追求自己的目标？文中举了一个例子：

A somewhat silly example: Let's say someone aspires to be a comedian, the best comedian ever, and to make a living doing comedy. He wants nothing else, it is his purpose. And he decides that in order to become a better comedian, he will watch re-runs of the old television cartoon 'Garfield and Friends' that was on TV from 1988 to 1995.

一个稍显滑稽的例子：假设有个人立志成为一名喜剧演员，成为有史以来最优秀的喜剧演员，并以此为生。他别无他求，这是他的人生目标。他决定，为了提升自己的喜剧技巧，他将观看1988年至1995年间在电视上播出的经典卡通片《加菲猫和他的朋友们》的重播。

相信我们都有过类似的经历。通常是冲动引发的 Action，而不是理性选择的 Action。这样的行为通常持续不了多久，因为系统一选择的路径通常没有经过细致的调研，在经历不适之后，系统二一质问，就会废弃这个行为。

一个更加合适的做法是，让系统一和系统二协同。系统二定期 Review Action，基于是否有更合适当下状况的可行路径，决定是否要继续当前的 Action。有点像遛狗理论：狗有一定的自由度，但一旦跑偏会被主人通过绳子纠正。

防呆（日语：ポカヨケ poka yoke），又称错误校对，是一种预防矫正的行为约束手段，运用防止错误发生的限制方法，让操作者不需要花费注意力、也不需要经验与专业知识，凭借直觉即可准确无误地完成的操作，在许多场景下可以提升效率和使用体验，也防止损坏更换的成本，因此优良的产品中防呆设计极为基础而普遍。

“错误校对”实例：以太网络电缆插头被设计成仅能在一个方向才可插入。

许多事情一旦作业量增加，事务变得繁忙，超过一般人可以正常注意并应变的情况下就会发生错误，甚至发生危险造成生命财产的损失。

为了预防错误与危险便可将防呆机制应用在相关的任何事情，包括职场的机械操作、一般生活的产品使用，甚至文字处理。让具备专业知识以及充份经验的人，甚至外行人都能轻松直觉的操作同时不会出错与步入险境。

一款好的 App 是不是也应该是「防呆」的？就算是一个醉汉来用，也不会出错。

指差确认（日语：指差喚呼）是一种透过身体各种感官（包括视觉、大脑意识、身体动作、口诵及听觉）并用协调，以增加操控器械的注意力的职业安全动作方法。

「指差确认」是一种让系统二介入系统一的方式，因为会涉及到身体多个器官（眼、手、口、耳）的协同，错误很难生存。比如高铁的门是开着的，如果用手指着这扇门说门是关着的，很容易就会被检测到有问题。有点像瑞士奶酪模型，每一个器官都是奶酪的一层，一个错误要同时穿过这些奶酪会很难。

Gwern 的这篇文章从「袜子不够用了」这件小事出发，做了很多的思考，本质上是将「袜子不够用」这件事比做「长期忽略某些事情，导致逐渐偏离正确的方向，最终承受它带来的负面效应」。

这些事情，可以是深渊事情，也可以是日常采购这样的「小事」。持续地忽视它们，会让自己一直活在次优解状态下。

用「系统一」和「系统二」（出自 Thinking, Fast and Slow）来解释的话，就是长期让系统一主导，而系统二很少干预。

解决方案就是设置一个定时 Review 机制，强制让系统二去检验系统一。

lack of hard rules lets errors accumulate, without any ‘global’ understanding of the drift into disaster (or at least inefficiency). Humans on a smaller scale also ‘drift’ when they engage in System I reactive thinking & action for too long, resulting in cognitive biases.

缺乏硬性规定会让错误不断累积，而没有任何 "全局 "意识会让错误演变成灾难（或至少是低效）。在较小的范围内，人类如果长期处于系统 I 的被动思维和行动中，就会产生认知偏差，从而导致 "漂移"。

Fixes for these things can be seen as ensuring that System II deliberative cognition is periodically invoked to review things at a global level, such as developing a habit of maximum exploration at first purchase of a food product, or annually reviewing possessions to note problems like a lack of socks.

对这些问题的解决可以被看作是确保系统二的审慎认知被定期调用，以在全局层面对事物进行审查，比如养成在首次购买食品时最大限度探索的习惯，或者每年对财产进行审查，以注意到缺少袜子等问题。

For many things, there is never any hard deadline or scheduled event or reminder which would bring a need to mind. So necessary things suffer from what a computer scientist might call starvation: when a background task, like running a backup, which has a low priority (eg. a backup can wait a few minutes without much risk), is continuously pushed out by higher priority tasks and never gets to run; while it may not have been urgent that it run immediately, it is urgent that it run eventually. (Anyone who disagrees about backups not being important is free to implement that advice and see how it works for them in the long run.)

对于许多事情来说，从来没有任何硬性的截止日期、计划事件或提醒会让人想起需要做的事情。因此，必要的事情就会遭受计算机科学家所谓的 "饥饿"：当后台任务（如运行备份）的优先级较低（例如，备份可以等待几分钟而不会有太大风险）时，就会被优先级较高的任务不断挤出，永远无法运行；虽然它可能并不急于立即运行，但它最终运行却是急需的。(如果有人不同意备份并不重要的说法，可以自由实施该建议，看看从长远来看效果如何）。

YC 自家的 Startup List

独立开发者要做的是将别人眼中「不就是」变成「不仅仅是」。

An Inside View on a topic involves making predictions based on your understanding of the details of the process. An Outside View involves ignoring these details and using an estimate based on a class of roughly similar previous cases (alternatively, this is called reference class forecasting), though it has been pointed out that the possible meaning has expanded beyond that.

For example, someone working on a project may estimate that they can reasonably get 20% of it done per day, so they will get it done in five days (inside view). Or they might consider that all of their previous projects were completed just before the deadline, so since the deadline for this project is in 30 days, that's when it will get done (outside view).