Skip to content

唐逍 | Tang Syau Posts

War is illegal.

Yet the biggest single change in the international order is an idea we seldom appreciate today: war is illegal. For most of history, that was not the case. Might made right, war was the continuation of policy by other means, and to the victor went the spoils. If one country felt it had been wronged by another, it could declare war, conquer some territory as compensation, and expect the annexation to be recognized by the rest of the world. The reason that Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah are American states is that in 1846 the United States conquered them from Mexico in a war over unpaid debts. That cannot happen today: the world’s nations have committed themselves to not waging war except in self-defense or with the approval of the United Nations Security Council. States are immortal, borders are grandfathered in, and any country that indulges in a war of conquest can expect opprobrium, not acquiescence, from the rest.

The legal scholars Oona Hathaway and Scott Shapiro argue that it’s the outlawry of war that deserves much of the credit for the Long Peace. The idea that nations should agree to make war illegal was proposed by Kant in 1795. It was first agreed upon in the much-ridiculed 1928 Pact of Paris, also known as the Kellogg-Briand pact, but really became effective only with the founding of the United Nations in 1945. Since then, the conquest taboo has occasionally been enforced with a military response, such as when an international coalition reversed Iraq’s conquest of Kuwait in 1990–91. More often the prohibition has functioned as a norm—“War is something that civilized nations just don’t do”—backed by economic sanctions and symbolic punishments. Those penalties are effective to the extent that nations value their standing in the international community—a reminder of why we should cherish and strengthen that community in the face of threats from populist nationalism today.

Steven Pinker. 2018. Enlightenment Now

natural food?

“Natural food.” Whenever I hear those words crooned, my inner crank cranks up. “Natural!” I would rail if I gave it voice. “No product of agriculture is the slightest bit natural to an ecologist! You take a nice complex ecosystem, chop it into rectangles, clear it to the ground, and hammer it into perpetual early succession! You bust its sod, flatten it flat, and drench it with vast quantities of constant water! Then you populate it with uniform monocrops of profoundly damaged plants incapable of living on their own! Every food plant is a pathetic narrow specialist in one skill, inbred for thousands of years to a state of genetic idiocy! Those plants are so fragile, they had to domesticate humans just to take endless care of them!”

Stewart Brand. 2009. Whole Earth Discipline



前提是 Realtek 的板载声卡(集成声卡)。

我的台式机前置耳机插孔很松,接触不好,麦克风插孔就明显好很多(我也不知道为什么)。以前 Realtek 的控制面板是可以直接修改插孔用途的,但总之最近的情况是不可以了(最开始连 Realtek 的控制面板都打不开,后来发现 YouTube 上介绍的方法是要找主板厂商提供的驱动而不是直接在 Realtek 官网下载,试过之后确实可以打开 Realtek 控制面板,但找了半天还是没有发现原来用过的那个功能)。Google 到了一篇改注册表来实现这件事的介绍文章,试过之后确实没有问题。


  1. 注册表目录:HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Class\{4D36E96C-E325-11CE-BFC1-08002BE10318}\00XX\Settings\DrvYYYY_DevType_YYYY_SSYYYYYYYY
    (ooXX 要自己找一下,作者的情况是 0000,我是 0007;YYYY 也是每个人未必相同的数字)
  2. 在这个目录下新建一个 Binary Value,如果想把前置麦克风用作耳机插孔就是 Pin19 为 02 00 00 00(如果已经有 Pin19 了就直接修改,如下图)
  3. 重新启动操作系统,成功。


“Pin10” = Line-in (rear blue)
“Pin11” = Mic-in (rear pink)
“Pin14” = Front speakers (rear green)
“Pin15” = Rear speakers (rear black)
“Pin16” = Center / Sub-woofer (rear orange)
“Pin17” = Side speakers (rear gray)
“Pin19” = Front Mic-In (front pink)
“Pin1b” = Front Headphone (front green)

“00 00 00 00” = Line-in
“01 00 00 00” = Mic-in
“02 00 00 00” = Headphones
“03 00 00 00” = Front speakers 2nd Output
“04 00 00 00” = Front speakers
“05 00 00 00” = Rear speakers
“06 00 00 00” = Center / sub-woofer
“07 00 00 00” = Side speakers


“Pin00” = Front speakers (rear green)
“Pin01” = Rear speakers (rear black)
“Pin02” = Center / Sub-woofer (rear orange)
“Pin03” = Side speakers (rear gray)
“Pin04” = Mic-in (rear pink)
“Pin05” = Front Mic-In (front pink)
“Pin06” = Line-in (rear blue)
“Pin07” = Front Headphone (front green)


最近读的这两本书刚好有一些微妙的思想碰撞(Pinker 的那本才刚开始读)。

Haidt 这位道德心理学家,在当年听耶鲁大学心理学导论公开课时就已经知道了,对他的研究也很感兴趣,但他这本 The Righteous Mind(《正义之心》)我一直拖到最近才看完。应该说最打动我的还是那些原来就已经知道的东西,比如 moral dumbfounding 相关的实验和解释,但 Haidt 对 WEIRD (Western, educated, and from industrialized, rich, and democratic countries) 世界之外的道德观的同情与认可还是没有说服我。本来按他自己所说,他只是在做描述性的工作,但有意无意之中,其实讲了很多「应该」。并且他似乎还认为「应该」是不能被理性、数学和逻辑讨论的。

这本书让我想到那句「存在即合理」,不是说黑格尔的原意,而是说很多人的一种观念:一件事既然长期、广泛地存在,那必然有它的道理,有为什么得以长存的原因,我们应该尝试去理解它,而不是盲目批判。然而大到等级社会、种族歧视、压迫、战争,小到男尊女卑、三从四德、守贞、闹婚,世界上有很多事,都长期、广泛地存在,背后也的确有原因,但这些原因只不过是改善中的障碍,而不是抵制批判的辩护词。读 Pinker 的 Enlightenment Now,这种感觉就更加强烈。

[I]n psychology our goal is descriptive. We want to discover how the moral mind actually works, not how it ought to work, and that can’t be done by reasoning, math, or logic.

Jonathan Haidt. 2012. The Righteous Mind

We take its gifts for granted: newborns who will live more than eight decades, markets overflowing with food, clean water that appears with a flick of a finger and waste that disappears with another, pills that erase a painful infection, sons who are not sent off to war, daughters who can walk the streets in safety, critics of the powerful who are not jailed or shot, the world’s knowledge and culture available in a shirt pocket.

Steven Pinker. 2018. Enlightenment Now

[T]he economist Friedrich Hayek observed, “If old truths are to retain their hold on men’s minds, they must be restated in the language and concepts of successive generations” (inadvertently proving his point with the expression men’s minds). “What at one time are their most effective expressions gradually become so worn with use that they cease to carry a definite meaning. The underlying ideas may be as valid as ever, but the words, even when they refer to problems that are still with us, no longer convey the same conviction.” This book is my attempt to restate the ideals of the Enlightenment in the language and concepts of the 21st century.

Steven Pinker. 2018. Enlightenment Now

1930 年代的中国绑匪

Derek Parfit 出生在 1942 年的成都,当时他父母都在中国做医生、教医学,不过 Derek 出生一年后,他们就离开了中国。所以这位英国哲学家与中国有很微妙的关系。

刚看到 Parfit 在 On What Matters Vol. 1 里讨论康德伦理学中的 merely as a means 问题时,写到他母亲在 1930 年代的中国的遭遇:

In a case that is less clear, when my mother travelled on a Chinese river in the 1930s, her boat was held up by bandits, whose moral principles permitted them to take, from ordinary people, only half their property. These bandits let my mother choose whether they would take her engagement ring or her wedding ring. If these people treated my mother as a means, they did not treat her merely as a means. Were they close to doing that? I am inclined to answer No. But this may be a borderline case, in which this question has no definite answer.

顺带一说,我认为中文里「20 世纪 30 年代」这种说法就像把 2018 年说成「21 世纪第 18 年」一样累赘而愚蠢,然而大陆的正式出版物中似乎还不允许「1930 年代」这种说法。