zaoshikid

北美某个大学挖来某个超级大牛，会给一个非常特殊的xxx xxx professor的title，给一个高工资，让他安心搞学术，最多配一个秘书advisor协调工作，国内大学/研究院挖来一个超级大牛，就建一个全新的研究院，挂个新牌子，给一整套十几个人的编制，给他一个院长的title，威风气派，再给个高工资。国内这套做法的弊端是，不仅大牛会一直罩着这么多行政人员，甚至这个大牛跑了、退休了、逝世了，这套编制也不会撤掉，要么大牛找个学生接替位置，要么从其他学院、研究中心里腾出来七八个十几个位置，甚至副院长副书记等等高级闲职，给这几个人放进去，熬到退休。国内学术界不存在贪污腐败，但存在一万种浪费你事业单位财务的机会。

146

83K

zaoshikid @zaoshikid

2 days ago

@Dream1984Tube @GeorgetownLaw @MarkZJia @lidangzzz

zaoshikid retweeted

lidang 立党（劝人卖房/学CS/买SP500/纳100/OpenAI/Anthrop第一人）

@lidangzzz

2 days ago

中国刺激消费的最大障碍，是汽车销量过早下滑了。中国有大量中产家庭，还没阶级滑落，一年收入50万~200万，他们都非常想买第二辆、第三辆车，现在有一个巨他妈尴尬的问题：因为土地财政，他们不得不住进一线城市高层社区，只有一个停车位，这些人如果想买第二辆、第三辆、第四辆，压根没地方停；而这些人对第二三四辆车是有强烈刚需的，因为他们年收入50万~200万，都是清北复交的本硕博们，每天还跟个大傻逼似的挤地铁，非常不体面。而真正三线城市、郊区、县城、农村、自建房的那批人，绝大多数都是他妈穷逼，99%的人是买不起第二辆车的。我这几年反复输出过一个最重要的观点：土地财政不仅一次性从一线城市中产家庭一次性割走了300万~2000万的土地出让金，而且逼他们住在了90平米三室+一个车库的鸽子笼里面——这是限制他们消费的最大障碍，不仅导致他们只能买一辆车（甚至在北京，一辆车都买不上，因为摇号太麻烦），也阻碍了他们在90平米的房子里买大电视、买若干大电视、装修家庭影院、买洗碗机、装修办公室、装大功率中央空调、装烘干机等等所有家庭白色家电消费。如果你不搞土地财政，让这些人至少住上实际使用面积200平米的townhouse，家家户户有3个停车位，能买3辆车，不仅中高端汽车市场整体蛋糕直接暴涨到3倍，蔚小理都能活下来，小米能爆发，华为也能稳步推进，比亚迪也能继续增长，而且所谓家电补贴也可以全停下来了，这些人会源源不断买电视、买音响、买洗衣机、买游戏机、买洗碗机、买洗衣机、买烘干机，而且我反复讲过一个问题，家庭足够大，功能区才能划分清楚，只有人均居住面积达到70平米以上，你才会划出一个健身房，买家庭跑步机、划船机、楼梯机、椭圆机，再划出一个办公室，各种人体工程学座椅、升降桌、智能音箱再摆一套，再划出一个影音娱乐房，一个超大电视、音响系统、游戏机会再买一套，再划出一个大号厨房+吧台，咖啡机、制冰机、大号冰箱、各种家用小家电再买一套。中产家庭是有非常非常强烈的购物欲望的——前提是别让他们在北京、上海、深圳住90平米的鸽子笼，让他们住上人均70平米、总面积200平米的townhouse，给他们足够大的空间去划分家庭功能，才会在对应的功能区进行消费。当然，这些家庭已经被土地财政榨干到一滴不剩的地步了，别说消费了，买第二辆车都没动力了，只能活该忍着。

118

864

313

317K

zaoshikid retweeted

lidang 立党（劝人卖房/学CS/买SP500/纳100/OpenAI/Anthrop第一人）

@lidangzzz

2 days ago

买豪宅是富人的刚需，你不让他们在北京上海周边买，他们只能集体去洛杉矶买。富人的资产是自由的，6000万人民币在北京只能买鸽子笼，周围都是臭脸的南城香店员，大街上不清扫垃圾，而2000万人民币（300万刀）能在Beverly Hills好莱坞明星的街区买一套独栋，周围都是微笑的safeway店员，那么富人自己会货比三家，知道自己挑选性价比更高、更便宜、更舒服、更适合自己的街区，300万刀买好莱坞，还是6000万人民币买北京，富人心里一清二楚。你继续玩土地财政，继续3000平米成本的楼房卖10万一平米，土地财政自己利润率70%以上，你就不要怪资本流出，不要怪富人们拿着几百万几千万美元，跑到美国享受生活。富人也是要生活的，富人的钱也是自己挣的，富人会货比三家的。富人小孩的教育也是刚需，富人的小孩考不上北理本科，就要花钱读USC本科了，就不可能跟你玩高考刷题这一套了，就要真金白银每年7万刀给USC交学费了。富人也要陪老婆孩子在家里生活，也要偶尔吃吃烤肉，游游泳，户外看看电视，院子里种点黄瓜西红柿。富人也爱玩车，富人不想天天上下电梯钻地下车库，富人更不想天天提着五六袋子蔬菜水果肉蛋奶上下楼跑，富人也想有自己的车库，富人也想从车库直接提着蔬菜水果进家门，富人年轻时的梦想，就是在车库里改装一辆属于自己的皮卡，富人也想在车库里有一张大大的工作台，里面摆满电钻电锯，自己做做手工木雕，做个桌椅板凳，拼一套航模或者乐高。富人买车是真的冲动消费，无论是保时捷、劳斯莱斯，还是小米su7，比亚迪的那个高端品牌什么的，富人是真愿意掏出现金，隔三差五买个一辆，积攒个两三辆，在车库里放着，和好兄弟换着开。富人也想开车散散心，周末大中午吃饱喝足，在车库里两三辆车里挑一辆，下午逛逛街，开心开心，没有什么汽车文化，单纯就是享受享受驾驶的体验感。富人也不想天天跟个大傻逼一样，小区买三五个地下车库，天天担心有没有大傻逼划我车，每天上上下下坐电梯开车出门。富人也想给孩子一个自由空间，北京6000万的房子，实际使用面积只有210平米，孩子只有客厅的一角，地上全是堆满的玩具，富人也希望有个小院子，哪怕一个小小的泳池，孩子能游游泳，能晒晒太阳，能打打篮球，逗逗狗。你让富人憋在6000万的北京300平米（实际使用面积210平米）的楼房里憋屈致死，哪怕有阳光落地大玻璃，哪怕全套嘉格纳厨具，哪怕小区大厅入户门金碧辉煌，哪怕电梯入户，他也觉得憋屈。只要觉得憋屈，他就要自己找舒服地方过舒服生活了。你刺激100个穷逼的消费，不如刺激一个富人的消费，一个富人真愿意给你每年花个几百万。

730

245

145K

zaoshikid retweeted

梁一梦

@Dream1984Tube

3 days ago

An Open Letter to @GeorgetownLaw Professor @MarkZJia 给@GeorgetownLaw 威权法领域法学教贾麦克的公开信 A friend of yours reached out to me out of concern for you. Out of respect for that, I am responding directly, formally, and in public. I trust a Georgetown Law professor can answer a few questions about evidence, fairness, and his own public conduct. 1. The standard you set for yourself You clerked for Justice Ginsburg. You teach Law and Authoritarianism and Torts. You have taught Comparative Law: China in Context. Your scholarship examines how authoritarian states use law. It examines how geopolitical rivalry erodes individual rights. I am not using your résumé against you. I am holding you to the standards your own scholarship demands. In your 2024 article in the NYU Law Review, you issued a clear warning: U.S.–China rivalry threatens to diminish individual rights. It encourages executive overreach. It erodes legal rationality. Remember those words. We will return to them. 2. Your first tweet: four moves in one sentence A borrowed accusation. You did not personally write that Jensen Huang was compromised. You quote-tweeted someone who did. His words delivered the accusation. Yours gave it an elite audience. And it left you room to deny having made the claim yourself. Guilt by seating chart. You noted that Jensen and his wife sat at the head table with Xi and Trump. You placed that fact beside an unverified espionage claim. You left readers to connect the dots. You teach Torts. You know the doctrine of defamation by implication. A speaker creates a damaging impression without stating it outright. A seating arrangement is not evidence of espionage. A loaded question. You asked why the intelligence was ignored. That question assumes the intelligence was credible. It assumes it warranted immediate action. It assumes officials disregarded it. Those are the very facts that require proof. The burden flipped. You declared that the story raised "so many questions". Questions are legitimate. Unsubstantiated insinuations are not. You forced the target to answer suspicions you helped circulate. For an authoritarianism scholar, that should be a familiar danger. 3. By day, you study authoritarianism. By night, you cheer on the machinery. Your second tweet was even more revealing. You sketched a future where Jensen Huang spends his life dealing with lawyers. You listed an Nvidia internal review, congressional scrutiny, and federal inquiries. You presented this as a practical forecast. A forecast is never neutral. Congressional committee chairs have requested a closed-door briefing. Nvidia’s board announced an independent review. Neither fact should be denied. Legitimate inquiries should not be blocked for powerful executives. But a company review does not establish criminal wrongdoing. A congressional briefing does not justify federal investigations. Yet your list treats them as an inevitable sequence. The FBI. Commerce. The SEC. And then, casually: "etc." The FBI suggests espionage. Commerce suggests export-control violations. The SEC suggests securities fraud. Three agencies. Three implied crimes. Zero factual basis provided. You used qualifiers: "probable," "possible." You left room for retreat. The hedges protect you. The list damages him. Here is the deeper contradiction. You study how authoritarian states use law. You know that legal procedures do not just establish guilt. They impose crushing costs before any finding of wrongdoing. A person can lose years, fortunes, reputation, and peace of mind. The process becomes the punishment. Scholars of authoritarianism are supposed to warn against this. Yet you sounded eager to describe the ordeal awaiting its target. By day, you study how state power crushes rights. By night, you comfortably forecast that machinery descending on an American citizen. Where was your caution about executive overreach? Where was your insistence on distinguishing suspicion from evidence? Where was the scholar who warned that people with imputed ties to foreign adversaries suffer rights erosion? A scholar of authoritarianism should not treat state investigations as a spectator sport. He should not look like he has a front-row seat. 4. The defenses offered on your behalf Several arguments have been made in your defense. None answers the central criticism. "Mark never said the investigations were justified, only that they were coming." That distinction is the problem. You forecast investigations without once examining their evidentiary basis. You skipped the foundational question your discipline exists to ask. "A few tweets aren't binding legal authority." Nobody said they were. The harm was never statutory. It was reputational. And your Georgetown credential gave it institutional legitimacy. "Academics don't have that much influence." Then why do credentials matter? People listen because you teach at Georgetown and clerked on the Supreme Court. You cannot exploit the prestige and disown the accountability. "Mark just likes to shitpost." Then own it. A tweet about espionage and the FBI from a Georgetown professor is read as an expert opinion. The credential does not switch off when the tone turns casual. "Mark didn't write an op-ed calling for prosecution." An op-ed is not the threshold for accountability. An op-ed requires fact-checkers. A tweet spreads smears to thousands without legal liability. "Mark is restrained by his institutional role." Restraint explains measured silence. It does not explain amplifying unvetted spy smears and drafting dragnets. 5. Your own words reveal the cynicism Then came your public agreement: A collapse in Nvidia's stock could present a "buying opportunity." The contrast is striking. One moment, you amplify an allegation threatening America's most critical tech company. The next, you contemplate the market opportunity created by its collapse. You forecast legal misery for Jensen. You welcome discount prices for investors. What is missing is any demand for evidence before inflicting the damage. This is not legal scholarship. This is Beltway cynicism. 6. Your choice of target reveals your priorities Consider your own framing. You asked why intelligence was ignored. You asked why Jensen was seated at the head table. Those are decisions made by government officials. Huang did not decide which intelligence to act upon. Huang did not arrange the White House seating chart. If those decisions troubled you, why focus on the private citizen? The officials who exercised state power were right there. Over the past year, you criticized President Trump in a few tweets. Over a single weekend, you posted ten about Jensen Huang. You scrutinized the citizen's exposure to state power. You ignored the state's own exercise of that power. For an authoritarianism scholar, that is a stunning inversion. 7. The hall pass This is the dirtiest open secret in Washington. When politicians run McCarthyite campaigns against Asian founders, they risk charges of racism. When an elite Chinese American legal scholar nods along, he gives them an alibi: "Even their own top experts say there's smoke." Perhaps that was not your intention. Speech is judged by its consequences. You wrote that groups with imputed ties to foreign rivals see their rights eroded. When suspicion replaces evidence, that erosion deepens. It will not stop at Jensen Huang. It reaches every Chinese American researcher, engineer, and entrepreneur. They will be forced to answer for a dinner, a handshake, or a seating chart. One day, it may reach you. Trading evidentiary ethics for Beltway relevance is cynical. Pulling the ladder up behind you is worse. 8. The standard of Justice Ginsburg You clerked for Ruth Bader Ginsburg. That experience should leave you with a profound respect for due process. The distinction between allegation and proof. The distinction between authority and its lawful exercise. The distinction between an individual and political suspicion. These are not academic niceties. They matter most when the political atmosphere is hostile. Justice Ginsburg insisted that people be judged by their own conduct. Not by association. Not by demographic stereotypes. Remember what she taught you. Three questions for the public record: First: Before amplifying the claim that Jensen Huang was "compromised," what evidence did you independently verify? Second: When you invoked the FBI, Commerce, and the SEC, what specific facts justified naming each agency? Third: If another scholar used the same approach against your reputation—amplifying unproven rumors, surrounding you with insinuations, and speculating about federal investigations—would you consider that fair? You wrote extensively on state power, geopolitical suspicion, and rights erosion. Do those principles still apply when the target is Jensen Huang? Postscript I did not have a lawyer for a father, unlike you. I did not attend Phillips Academy, unlike you. I did not attend Princeton, unlike you. I did not win a Rhodes Scholarship, unlike you. I do not own a single Nvidia share or option. I never treated its drop as a buying opportunity, unlike you. Before anyone calls me "pro-China," let me be clear: I do not support politicians of any party—Democratic, Republican, or Communist. If I support anything, I support ordinary Chinese Americans. They should never have to prove they are not spies. If there is any connection between Jensen Huang and me, it is this: I wrote this letter myself. I refined it with ChatGPT, Claude, Google Gemini, and Grok. Every single one of these AI tools runs on computing infrastructure powered by Nvidia chips. 你的一位朋友出于对你的关切私下联系了我。出于对这份关切的尊重，我选择直接、正式且公开地作出回应。我相信，作为乔治城大学法学院的教授，你完全有能力回答关于证据、公正以及你个人公开言行的这几个问题。 1. 你为自己设定的标尺你曾担任金斯伯格大法官的法官助理。你教授《法律与威权主义》和《侵权法》。你的学术专长，是研究威权体制如何操纵法律。你的学术重点，是探讨地缘对抗如何侵蚀个体权利。我不是在拿你的履历反制你。我是在用你自己的学术标准审视你。在你 2024 年发表于《纽约大学法学评论》的论文中，你曾写下明确警告：美中对抗会削弱个体权利。它会助长行政越权。它会侵蚀法律理性。请记住这些话。我们稍后会回到这里。 2. 你的第一条推文：一句话里的四层算计借用他人的指控。你没有直接写下黄仁勋被策反。你转发了别人的指控推文。他的文字负责扣帽子。你的转发负责带流量。这为你留足了事后洗脱的退路。借国宴座次推定有罪。你指出黄仁勋夫妇在国宴上与特朗普同坐主桌。你把这个事实直接和间谍流言拼凑在一起。你任由读者自行去脑补推导。你教授《侵权法》。你深知什么是“默示毁谤”（defamation by implication）。不需要直接说谎，也能制造毁灭性的声誉指控。国宴上的座位安排，绝非间谍活动的证据。预设结论的诱导提问。你质问“为什么情报被忽视了”。这句话预设了：情报是可靠的。这句话预设了：官方理应采取行动。这句话预设了：有关部门存在渎职。可这些前提，恰恰是最需要拿出证据的核心事实。举证责任倒置。你宣称这桩传闻“引发了太多疑问”。提出疑问是公民的权利。散播未经核实的影射不是。你把自证清白的死局，甩给了一个被你推向风口浪尖的当事人。作为研究威权权力的学者，这种危险你本应最清楚。 3. 白天，你研究威权主义；夜晚，你为国家机器摇旗呐喊。你的第二条推文更加露骨。你描摹出黄仁勋余生将耗费在律师与调查泥潭中的景象。你列出了英伟达内部调查、国会调查，以及一系列联邦机构。你把这包装成一份“专业预测”。预测从不是中立的。国会委员会要求举行闭门简报。英伟达董事会宣布展开独立审查。这些事实不需要否认。正当的合规审查，不该因当事人的权势而止步。但公司的内部审查，不等于存在违法犯罪。国会的闭门简报，更不能推导出联邦机构的全面绞杀。可你的推文制造的正是这种必然性。 FBI。商务部。SEC。还有轻描淡写的三个字：“等等”。 FBI 暗示间谍罪。商务部暗示违反出口管制。SEC 暗示证券欺诈。三个机构。三项重罪暗示。零事实依据。你用了对冲词汇：“很可能”、“可能”。你给自己留了完美的退路。对冲词保护了你。这份名单伤害了他。而这正是最深层的荒谬所在。你穷尽学术生涯研究威权机器。你完全明白，法律程序不仅可以用来定罪。它更可以被用来在定罪之前惩罚当事人。一个人可以在从未被判有罪的情况下，耗尽光阴、财产、名誉与生活。程序本身，就是一种惩罚。研究威权主义的学者本该对这种危险大声疾呼。而你的文字里，却透着一种急于围观国家机器倾轧当事人的兴奋。白天，你研究国家机器如何碾碎人权。夜晚，你却在推特上津津乐道这台机器即将碾过一名美国公民。你对行政越权的警惕去了哪里？你对区分事实与捕风捉影的坚持去了哪里？那个警告“与地缘对手存在推定关联的人群将遭受权利剥夺”的学者，此刻又在哪里？研究威权主义的法学教授，不该把国家调查当成公开狂欢。更不该表现得像在前排早已买好了门票。 4. 为你开脱的那些辩解有人私下为你提出了几条辩护。没有一条站得住脚。 “Mark 从没说调查合理，他只是说调查要来。” 这正是问题所在。在完全不审视证据的情况下开列联邦调查清单。你亲手抛弃了法学学者最根本的职业伦理。 “几条推文又没有法律约束力。” 没人说过推文有法律效力。伤害从来不是法律层面的。伤害是声誉层面的。而你的乔治城教授头衔，给了这种伤害最权威的背书。 “学者其实没有那么大影响力。” 那学术头衔的意义何在？公众倾听你，恰恰是因为你顶着乔治城和最高法院的光环。你不能在享受特权红利时高谈阔论，在面对问责时装作人微言轻。 “Mark 只是随手口嗨（shitpost）罢了。” 那就堂堂正正承认这是口嗨。乔治城法学院教授实名发出的间谍言论，会被公众当成严肃研判。你的学术光环不会在你口嗨时自动关闭。 “Mark 至少没写正式专栏呼吁起诉。” 专栏不是承担责任的唯一标准。写专栏要经过事实核查。发推特却可以在毫无证据的情况下，把谣言送进成千上万人的脑海。 “Mark 受到了体制角色的约束。” 体制约束可以解释沉默。但它无法解释主动扩散未经证实的间谍谣言，并为联邦执法勾画围猎蓝图。 5. 你自己的言论暴露了虚伪与犬儒接着，你在推特回复：英伟达股价崩盘是“绝佳的买入良机”。这种反差十分特别。前一秒，你还在协助扩散足以摧毁美国核心科技巨头的间谍流言。后一秒，你却在琢磨其股价暴跌带来的抄底机会。对于黄仁勋将面临的法律折磨，你言之凿凿。对于投资者享受的折价红利，你欣然认可。而唯独缺失的，是对摧毁他人声誉所需证据的丝毫关切。这不是法律学术研究。这是华盛顿圈内最典型的精致犬儒。 6. 你的攻击目标暴露了你的真正立场回到你自己的逻辑里。你质问为什么情报被忽视。你质问为什么黄仁勋能坐在白宫主桌。这些决策全是政府官员做出的。黄仁勋无权决定情报部门如何履职。黄仁勋无权安排白宫国宴的座位。如果这些权力失职真的让你不安，你为何只咬住黄仁勋不放？真正行使公权力的官员就在那里。过去一年里，你批评特朗普总统的推文屈指可数。而短短一个周末，你围剿黄仁勋的推文高达十条。你审视平民遭受公权力碾压的热情，远远大过你审视公权力本身。对于威权主义学者而言，这是荒谬的本末倒置。 7. 政治通行证（The Hall Pass）这是华盛顿政治圈最肮脏的公开秘密。政客对华裔创始人发起麦卡锡式围剿，会面临种族歧视的指责。而一位顶尖华裔法学学者的附和，亲手给他们递上了道德通行证： “看，连他们自己的顶尖法学家都说有问题。” 或许这并非你的本意。但公开言论的杀伤力从不受动机局限。你曾亲笔写道：与地缘对手存在推定关联的人群，权利将遭到系统性剥夺。当身份株连取代法定证据，这种剥夺只会愈演愈烈。这绝不会止步于黄仁勋。它会波及每一位华裔工程师、学者和创业者。他们将不得不为一次宴席、一次握手或一张座位图自证清白。终有一天，这台机器也会找上你。践踏证据伦理去换取圈内入场券，是极度虚伪的。拆毁同胞赖以立足的梯子，更为人不齿。 8. 金斯伯格大法官确立的标尺你曾担任金斯伯格大法官的法官助理。这段经历本应让你对正当程序怀有敬畏。指控与证据的区别。国家权力与合法行使的区别。公民个人与政治嫌疑的区别。这些不是象牙塔里的教条。在政治风暴袭来时，它们是庇护公民最后的盾牌。金斯伯格大法官终其一生都在践行：评判一个人，要看他自己的所作所为。而不是看他的身份关联，或对他族裔群体的刻板预设。请记住她教给你的东西。留给公共记录的三个问题：第一：在公开扩散黄仁勋“被策反”的指控前，你独立核实过什么证据？第二：当你点名 FBI、商务部和 SEC 时，有哪些具体事实支持将这三家机构并列提出？第三：如果另一位学者用同样的手法对待你的声誉——借用一条谣言，加上充满暗示的背景，公开揣测哪些部门该调查你——你是否会觉得公正？你曾写下卷帙浩繁的著作，痛陈公权力的滥用与人权的流失。现在的核心问题是：当被怀疑的人是黄仁勋时，这些原则还算数吗？后记我没有一位当律师的父亲，不像你。我没有读过新英格兰的贵族私校菲利普斯学院，不像你。我没有上过常春藤名校普林斯顿大学，不像你。我没有拿过罗德奖学金，不像你。我没有读过哈佛法学院，不像你。我没有拿过罗德奖学金去过牛津大学，不像你。我更不是律师，更没有你这么多漂亮光鲜顶级的学术履历，我没有持有任何英伟达股票或期权。我也从没把它的暴跌当成抄底套利的机会，不像你。在有人给我扣上“亲中”帽子前，我先说明：我不支持任何党派的政客民主党、共和党，还是共产党。这在我推特都有迹可查如果说我支持什么，我只支持普普通通的在美华裔。他们本不该被迫去证明自己不是间谍。如果说我和黄仁勋之间有什么联系，那就是：这封信由我独立构思、撰写。由 ChatGPT、Claude、Google Gemini 和 Grok 协同打磨。而所有这些人工智能模型，全部运行在由英伟达芯片筑就的算力底座之上。