卖国骗子李开复

关于他,我2018年9月在知乎上发表了回答,对于为什么越来越不喜欢李开复的问题。

昨天,看到了搜狐上的别了,李开复–奇特“导师”不为人知的二三事,自然想起了我最初对李开复的认识。这篇文章我也微信宣传了一下,以下文字为介绍

记得高一时一无所知的我却被他的一本书所忽悠,当时基本只在美国学校环境中,对互联网行业并不了解,并对此有一定的敬畏感,所以这样的人写的东西,我自然就信了,当时我还无疑的把美国顶尖学校和技术公司非常看好,了解中国好多以美国或美国华人的眼光,后来慢慢通过知识和经验的积累敢于得出了在美国难以想象的结论:中国核心科技从美国根本没有得到多少,远远更多来自了前苏联,微软和谷歌算不上多么核心的科技,门槛没那么高,尤其后者主要依赖英文互联网,李开复在严重污染中国青年的世界观,最好和美国保持距离,有些贸易和学术交流就足够了,把更多的精力和资源放在发展中国自己的企业和机构,让那些给美国当买办的人彻底边缘化。

那本书《与未来同行》是我妈妈在读,我妈妈建议我读的,当时我的中文也不太好,但是那本书用的都是非常通俗的语言。记得当时我妈妈跟我说李开复当了微软的VP,又当了谷歌的VP。我爸爸妈妈都不是做软件开发员的,不是学计算机的,对计算机知道也很少,那时候我对计算机也一无所知,可是我的数学在同学里算好,自然我妈妈可能想我将来会对计算机感兴趣,并能把我引进这比较挣钱的行业。后来,我也在硅谷大公司当过码农,李开复当高管的这两家巨头我也都拿到过做软件开发的工作,在那些地方认识不少人,了解他们是怎么回事。

反正记得李开复在那本书里写的都是他的教育哲学,人生哲学,没啥真正特别有含义的东西,大多是比较神话硅谷成功的人,说美国如何如何好,中国教育和学校如何如何有缺陷,好多那些我当时可能都相信了。

后来,我学了计算机科学,写了直接影响上万用户的代码,了解这个行业是怎么回事儿了。同时,我也上了研究生的数学课,在高中和大学数学竞赛都得过一些不算大但不可忽略的奖,至少证明了我有一定的能力,认识了一些数学博士等等,就不那么好忽悠了。同样,我的中文也大所提高,让我接触到了一般在美国的人很难接触到的信息,更正确的了解了中国的历史背景。

说起中国的历史背景,李开复是国民党后代这一点,我最近才真正知道,当前,只知道他是台湾人,初中来了美国。他爸爸却是黑中共的“历史学家”,伯伯和叔叔都51年被人民政府枪毙了。非常明显,他有强大的势力背后支持他在中国搞渗透,这一点,我也是2018年才真正认识到。

在美国长大以美国的意识形态为标准自然是默认的,长大时所听到的对于中国都是中国制造质量差,中国缺乏创新,中国需要跑到美国才能更有creativity(创造性),看到最好的华裔科学家工作都是在美国做的,李开复写的也基本朝着这个方向。我来到美国是因为父母来,长大听到的好多是,能跑到美国的人都有一定的能力,因为我们有能力,你才能在美国享受优越的生活这类的话。得到的总是一种中国不行,小时候太穷,而我们那代的美国人都有资源活远远更丰富的生活,所以中国人都想跑到美国来,都要学习美国。简单的例子,那么多中国父母在美国叫孩子学钢琴,是因为他们自己小时候没那个机会,把它看成作为成功父母的标准之一,而且还会和其他父母比。

后来,我慢慢发现大多这些我接触的第一代移民的观念有很严重的问题。对于他们小时候的中国,个人是穷,没有钱,他们都学不了钢琴,但这不意味着不会有极少数孩子,来自特殊家庭或者特别有天分的能得到一些国家的资源成为钢琴演奏家(反正一个没很强的音乐天分的人学钢琴意义价值不大)。对于很多东西,他们看得非常表面,缺乏远见。他们觉得他们自己能和美国有关联,有不得了了,即使自己没啥地位,就是个非常普通的工程师,没想到白人都根本瞧不起他们。然后,一个在美国稍微混出点名堂来的华人,如李开复,那在这些人眼里就不得了了。

说实话,实质远远更重要,要看你懂什么,做了什么。美国也有底层,也有中国人跑到那儿刷盘子的,的确美国的牌子当年很有价值,但这都不是永恒,现在美国的牌子就远不如以前了,而会继续朝着这个方向走。随着这个趋势,李开复现在也不行了,现在中国人更加觉醒,更加认识到他也就是微软和反华谷歌的狗仔了,中国代理人。他那种做法不可能给他永久性的地位。因为他曾经忽悠了不懂事的孩子的我,成年的了解世面的我只会对他更加反感,就让他自食其果吧。

李开复骨子里就是美国买办人,他的心中使命就是把中国的政治形势破坏到永远受制于人的局面,好实现他的“洋人第一,他们第二,中国人最低”的梦想。他是帝国主义解放前在中国养育扶持的政治癌症的后代,这个癌症被杀掉了不少,而他却在妄想其复活。一位身不由己在美国长大的中国人支持中国人民全心全意彻底扫除李开复之类的害人虫!

记得我有一次提到了李开复和Steve Hsu(一位拿了CIA的钱以他的互联网安全公司在中国搞渗透的蒋介石的远亲)为非常成功的美国华人。对方的反应是“问题是一旦美国对他们施加一定的压力,他们就会毫不犹豫的背叛我们,伤害我们”。不光是李开复和Steve Hsu,凡是在美国养了没有退路的香蕉孩子的第一代移民,基本都可以给出这样的判断,例外是有,对那些例外及他们的孩子,我的忠告很简单:想法尽快脱离。

这些人都算代表性的国共分裂的遗产,而美国社会一直在提拔他们那样的人利用他们对中国进行分裂,对中国威胁最大的不是反华的白人,而是这些不中不洋三观不正的买办人。我个人一直在想如何能够让我的人生活的做的更有意义,更有价值。或许凭着我的天分,我却能在某理工科领域做出点名堂来,但我觉得在美国我所接受的环境和机会,我的这方面的天分没有得到充分的发挥。即使那条路走顺了,早晚还是会面临一定的尴尬,因为我的经验告诉我,无论个人混的多么杰出,华人在美国是难以持续的,那种环境对华人一代一代的传承是非常打压的,而这集体因素很难不影响到个人。

所以我更愿意利用我的能力和背景帮助中国打倒李开复这类的汉奸,巩固中华民族的凝聚力,为中华民族赢得更加和谐美好的未来!

Advertisements

Something I learned today about Microsoft

I recall when I was in high school, some old guy told me that Microsoft got really lucky with its IBM deal. I didn’t know about that, and I didn’t care enough to learn about that until today. Apparently, Microsoft bought the license for an operating system created by Gary Kildall and his company by the name of CP/M, from which they derived MS-DOS. It is said that Microsoft basically

According to Wikipedia,

When Digital Research founder Gary Kildall examined PC DOS and found that it duplicated CP/M’s programming interface, he wanted to sue IBM, which at the time claimed that PC DOS was its own product. However, Digital Research’s attorney did not believe that the relevant law was clear enough to sue. Nonetheless, Kildall confronted IBM and persuaded them to offer CP/M-86 with the PC in exchange for a release of liability.

I’d totally believe it. The truth is to win in business, even in technology, is as much if not more about connections, marketing, and legal tactics, than about the innovativeness of the actual technology and product itself. Bill Gates, in addition to being very gifted technically, was from a very prominent family, with his father as a partner of a law firm, and he was willing to engage to the extremes in cutthroat, win-at-all-costs behavior.

I can see the following analogy. Bill Gates is to Gary Kildall as Thomas Edison is to Nikola Tesla. Tesla was much stronger, more inventive, and more farsighted technologically, but Edison was the one to successfully commercialize and gain credit, and similarly, Kildall actually did very foundational programming work, in compilers and operating systems, or so it seems; Bill Gates did not but he ended up winning. Heck, Kildall even had it much worse in many ways. Tesla is more or less a household name, though less so than Edison. On the other hand, very few people have heard of Kildall. I see another, less direct analogy. You know how the Chinese government is often despised for using access to the Chinese market to extort technology/IP from foreign companies? Concretely, there is that China purchased high speed rail technology from German and Japanese companies and basically reverse-engineered and re-designed it, and eventually with its size, built what is now by far the world’s largest high speed rail network. I wouldn’t be surprised if what the Chinese did in high speed rail technology was mostly of an incremental and scaling nature, as opposed to one of foundational innovation. As much hype as there is in the media about Chinese tech, I still don’t see all that much radical innovation there. Of course, that has much to do with China’s having started very very behind. When you’re like that, you can in most fields only learn and copy, and even that is often pretty non-trivial. After all, most countries and corporations cannot even copy. So you could say there is somewhat of a parallel between China and Microsoft. The one glaring exception I can think of is that China sucks at marketing, while Microsoft is for the most part good at it. By the way, Bill Gates is revered, often blindly, in China, with few people there seeming to know or care about his nasty side. He has marketed himself very successfully, especially his whole philanthropic foundation. As cynical as I am, I think Bill Gates is doing all that mostly after he already won, to redeem himself, reputation wise.

There is another parallel between the two. Microsoft may not be the best at anything or closely relatedly, terribly innovative, but it can do just about everything, and China is like that too. Microsoft has its own software ecosystem, from operating system to programming language to distributed system to search engine to word processor to phone (which I just learned got cancelled). Microsoft even has a prominent games division, with Xbox and Age of Empires, which I much enjoyed playing as a kid, though I wasn’t very good at it. In this way, Microsoft is more comprehensive than Google. Google doesn’t really have programming languages (C# is a much bigger deal than Go as far as I can tell), nor does it have its own PC. And the other major tech companies like Apple, Facebook are all much more specialized.

I’ll conclude with a comment on my take related to this whole trade war ongoing between US and China that’s been so big in the media lately, particularly on how US likes to blame to China for stealing its technology. I seriously believe this is way overblown, though of course I can’t know for sure how much actually valuable the Chinese actually managed to steal from US defense companies. To convince you that I’m not saying this out of any ethnic bias, I’ve give some justification of my position.

First of all, those really smart, high trained, and highly creative/innovative/productive mainland Chinese in America have mostly stayed in America, benefitting American companies and the American economy massively. Sure there is some communication and collaboration with people in China, but I would expect it to be relatively minimal in anything that is terribly advanced and not already in the public domain (which means academia doesn’t count). Why? Because if you’re working in America at the cutting edge of technology you’re busy enough yourself. And you’re a Pacific Ocean apart. But if those people actually return to China with their expertise, then they could contribute massively to China’s science and technology. There seems to be much more of that happening in the past couple years, and I expect the trend to continue that way.

There is also that military technology wise, China seems to be developing mostly indigenously, with of course much input from Russia, whose equipment at the most advanced level China often prefers over her own for obvious reasons. After all, the technological ecosystem left behind by the former USSR that Russia inherited, while much inferior to the US one, is still quite formidable. On this, I find it necessary to extend this to a phenomenon with much deeper roots little heard of in America due to political bias. It is that China more or less unambiguously got way more technologically from the former Soviet Union than from the US. China’s modern technology and industry was essentially founded upon what the Soviet Union gave to China in the 50s. That was the decade when China achieved basic modernization in a comprehensive way with the help of the designs the Soviet Union provided then for a wide array of technologies from chemical plants to cars to airplanes, that was accompanied by Soviet experts actually working in China. It has occurred to me given how effective the Soviet STEM education system was, they had trained enough of a surplus of, relative to the ones working at home, second-rate, scientists and engineers and technicians to send to China. Sure, there were some highly trained, brilliant people with higher education and work experience in the US who returned to China in the 50s who did important work there afterwards, but that doesn’t really count as actual technology transfer. There was basically no direct exchange with the US during that period. So if Russia blames China for stealing its technology, there is not really all that much that the Chinese can say, given their history of more or less cloning a lesser version of the best that the Soviets/Russians had, but if the US does, China can perfectly reasonably say for many things that the US had basically nothing to do with it.

Why am I saying this? Because there seems to be much misunderstanding in America on this matter, so I feel somewhat obliged to point this out. How people will react, that is another matter. But I’ll at least keep a solid, publicly viewable record.

I consider myself pretty dispassionate by the way. I mostly want to understand how the world actually works. There is propaganda everywhere, but I shall say that much of US propaganda is especially ridiculous. Given the pervasiveness and dominance of Anglo culture, a legacy of the British Empire and later American supremacy of course, it might fool the majority of people, but there will always be some who cannot be fooled, even if they grow up in America. I think it’s time that American elites face the truth instead of denying it; it’ll be beneficial for both America and the world at large. Downgrading and outright denying the achievements and ability of groups or nations for political reasons signifies not only poor character, but also personal insecurity. No other elite does this as grossly as the American elite. Also, a propaganda/culture war is hard to sustain if relies too much on telling lies. America’s doing this will also further alienate the elites of certain high achieving groups in America who contribute much to America’s technology and innovation. It cannot last forever.

In saying this I convey another implicit message. It’s important to be technically strong, but it’s just as important if not more so to know how to stand up for yourself and even act in a cutthroat/rogue way if really necessary. Know how to advocate for yourself and don’t let others take credit for your work and your accomplishments. China could learn more of that side of Bill Gates, and I believe they already are. Of course, they will do even better in the future with that. Another group that ought to do that, with allusion to Michael O Church, are the programmers and technologists in Silicon Valley and in America at large, who are an increasingly marginalized group. It’ll be good for both themselves and for America as a country.