Hi, 我在等你迈出第一步!| Flipboard小天使招募中

“从几时起,我们早已习惯了泡在手机里,这里就是宇宙星河,我们各自游走着、发掘着,哪个空间是我们的新大陆,哪个场景适合我们安歇,目的只有一个:寻找内心的宁静。”

“红板报用自带滤镜效果的设计美感和纵览全球的格局思想给我们带来了清新的视觉感受。我愿意沉浸于此,参与其中,散发出一丝微弱光芒的力量,碰撞彼此。”

以上评价来自红板报用户Dreamer&Traveler&代Sir

我们很感动能够收到这样走心的评价,我们每一次产品更新,都是为了不脱离大家,更好的走进大家的内心。但是是否满足你们真正的需求了呢,我们获得的信息还不够直接。

所以

我们诚挚的邀请每一位看到这篇文章的朋友,

报名成为我们的百名产品体验官,与我们一起前行。

你也将获得一次专属的新功能体验,

当然你的意见,也很可能感动了N亿用户:)

 

虽然我们

“内容真多”

除了被审核干掉的小黄小赌小毒

“话题真酷”

除了水贴和卖货帖我们是管够的

 

而且我们

“没啥玩的”

除了评论区还是评论区,尽情发挥

“没啥送的”

除了精美周边和群红包,保证没别的

 

最后

“你一定要来”

除非你真的不喜欢体验各种好玩的手机APP

除非你真的要放弃提前体验新功能的权利

除非你真的能容忍测试中存在的各种问题

除非你真的不想获得反馈意见后的额外奖励

除非你真的…没有使用过红板报!!

 

说了这么多,我们是来真的,测试版用户体验活动长期有效

快扫群二维码加入我们吧~

 

 

 

不服来辩#26 你赞不赞成快餐式教育?

 

教育一直以来就承担者普世性和传道授业的神圣使命。但近年来,各种层出不穷的线上授课和网上学习的快餐式教育正在对传统的教育行业进行着冲击。

现在随便刷刷朋友圈都能看到「三天学会写代码」、「十天成为设计师」的广告,这样的快餐式更容易获得关注和点击,从而获利。很多培训机构也都会打这这样的口号来满足学生所需,段子逗、敢吹嘘就能引来学生的追捧。同时获得了巨大的盈利。

传统教育的本质是追求内在价值的最大化,是培养思想品味的过程。相比于普天改地的「三天学会写代码」、「十天成为设计师」更不被学生所接受。这样高度被商业化所裹挟只知道逐利的课程,似乎与教育的初衷培养完备的人性背道而驰了。

那么你觉得传统课程应该向快餐式课程改变吗?

来评论区说说💡

参与方式:

赞成快餐式教育的,请在评论区用“emoji👍+你的观点”

不赞成快餐式教育的,请在评论区用“emoji👎+你的观点”

举个🌰:

“👍快餐式教育的帮助教育这方面迈出了关键一步,可谓是「站着把钱挣了」,同时让更多的人学到了专业的技能,两全其美的事情,何乐而不为呢?”

“👎教育的普世性和传道授业的神圣使命,与商业化的逐利本质,存在极高的矛盾对立,快餐式满足的是即时需求,教育是让思想升级但十分艰深的课程。这两者本身就是对立的,我并不认为教育可以被快餐化,且万万不能让教育快餐化”

钟南山:疫情发生在武汉不等于疫情源头也在武汉

今天(18日)下午,在广州市政府新闻办举行的第46场疫情防控新闻通气会上,有记者提问,如何看待病毒源头的问题?

中国工程院院士钟南山表示,源头和疫情发生不一定是一回事。新冠肺炎疫情是发生在武汉,但没有证据表明源头也在武汉

这是个科学问题,通过分子生物学、病毒进化的研究,关于新冠病毒源头,是能够搞清楚的。但没有搞清楚之前就随便下结论,是不负责任的。

来源:人民日报

https://wap.peopleapp.com/article/5287921/5194563

Trump, Truth, and the Mishandling of the Coronavirus Crisis

By David Remnick

March 15, 2020

The Administration’s stumbling response to the pandemic was, alas, no surprise.  Photograph by Jason Redmond / Reuters

The best of modern Presidents, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, believed in the responsibilities of government and the realities of fact. Despite his place in America’s patrician caste, he suffered the consequences of an earlier epidemic, and he derived from it a code of empathy and endurance. In August, 1921, when Roosevelt was thirty-nine, he came down with polio while at his summer retreat on Campobello Island. From then on, he was unable to walk and could stand only with the aid of steel-and-leather braces that reached from his ankles to his hips. His ambition and sense of mission, however, would not be denied. At the 1924 Democratic Convention, Roosevelt—sweating profusely, swaying slightly at the rostrum—spoke for thirty-four minutes and set off an hour-long demonstration of cheering and the choruses of “The Sidewalks of New York.”

Four years later, Roosevelt became the governor of New York, and, in 1932, he was elected to the first of four terms as President. The quotation that defined his temperament was revealed in his first Inaugural Address, which he delivered as the nation faced the “common difficulties” of a Great Depression and the dawning of Fascism in Europe.

“In every dark hour of our national life,” he said, “a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory.” In asking Congress for the authority to “wage a war against the emergency,” Roosevelt fearlessly answered what his biographer Jean Edward Smith called “the spiritual need of the people, the need for hope, not despair.” The next morning, he commenced what he had promised, a radical campaign to rescue the economic well-being of the American people.

The crisis that has now enveloped the nation is a vastly different one—a pandemic called covid-19. The Presidency that faces it is also a vastly different one. Donald Trump’s ascent has been framed by two of his most characteristic remarks: “I alone can fix it” and “I don’t take responsibility at all,” and the journey from one to the other has been long and excruciating.

Confronted by crisis, Trump’s response has been to minimize it, downplaying the realities of the new coronavirus while bragging about what an “amazing” job he’s been doing. He squandered the most valuable resource in a pandemic: time.

When the virus was first identified, in January, Tom Bossert was one of several prominent voices in the realm of emergency preparedness to sound a warning. “We face a global health threat,” he said on Twitter. The problem was that Bossert—a Homeland Security adviser and an official with deep experience in emergency management—was a formerAdministration figure, having been pushed out last year. Scott Gottlieb, who called for immediate preventive measures, including the closure of public venues to slow the spread of the virus, was another such voice, but he was the former head of the Food and Drug Administration under Trump.

“What the American people need to brace themselves for is a large rate of sickness and death in this country,” Bossert told me. Actions to reduce the spread of the virus, and the timing of those actions, will have profound consequences. Bossert recalled the decision by Philadelphia authorities during the Spanish-flu epidemic of 1918 to allow a Liberty Loan parade to raise money for the war effort. On a late September day, two hundred thousand people marched up Broad Street and, at parade’s end, listened to a concert by John Philip Sousa. Within three days, the cities’ hospitals were overflowing; thousands were dead. “Bodies stacked like cordwood” became the phrase of the day. In St. Louis, by contrast, officials took quick, extreme measures to close schools, churches, theatres, and playgrounds––the measures that we refer to in our new language of pandemic as “social distancing.” In the end, the per-capita death rate from influenza in St. Louis was half that of Philadelphia.

It is a saddening experience to read Beth Cameron’s recent account, in the Washington Post, of what happened to the office she led during the Obama Administration: the National Security Council Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense. In 2018, the Trump Administration closed it. Cameron writes that she was “mystified” by the decision, one that left the United States less prepared for pandemics such as the current one.

When Yamiche Alcindor, a reporter for “PBS NewsHour,” asked the President at a Rose Garden press conference last week why he shut down the office, Trump’s response was evasive and petulant: “I think it’s a nasty question.” Testifying before Congress, Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health, allowed, “It would be nice if the office was still there.” You had to wonder why Trump didn’t replace Fauci with Elizabeth Holmes.

Bossert, who has been pressing for a far greater sense of urgency since January, said he did not want to spend too much time criticizing anyone for actions taken or not taken in the early stages of the crisis. “While there are myriad questions that are legitimate about the Administration’s timeliness and decision-making processes, the President nevertheless did us a favor this week by yelling ‘fire’ while there is still time to do something about that fire,” he said. “That is critical. While the fire is still on the stove, you can’t sit back and watch it burn. It will spread.”

The Trump Administration has been more interested in setting fires than in investing in fire prevention or containment: it has been eager to dismantle the “administrative state,” to upend a raft of international agreements (notably the Paris climate agreement and the nuclear pact with Iran), and to reduce spending for science, health, the environment, and emergency preparedness. Expertise has offended Trump. He has found his enemies not among foreign dictators but among members of the American “deep state,” including career diplomats and intelligence analysts, as well as university teachers, journalists, congressional Democrats, and “disloyal” Republicans––dissenters of all kinds. His circle of loyalists is so lacking in policy expertise that the writing of his speech on the coronavirus from the Oval Office last week was left mainly to his nativist immigration counsellor Stephen Miller and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

The Administration’s stumbling response to the pandemic was, alas, no surprise. Trump’s response to Hurricane Maria, which devastated Puerto Rico, in September, 2017, and left three thousand people dead, was at least as shambolic. Now, as he tries to craft a response to covid-19, he remains, at best, distracted by ego. Just hours before the Oval Office speech on Wednesday, he went on Twitter to complain about “another phony & boring hit piece” in Vanity Fair.

In a rational universe, Trump would have no chance at reëlection. But, even if the Democratic Party front-runner, Joe Biden, despite all his flaws, runs a coherent, competent, and dignified race, there are no guarantees. Is it a stretch to wonder whether Donald Trump has given thought to postponing or otherwise derailing the November election? Just days ago, Vladimir Putin had his loyalist legislature amend the Russian constitution to allow him to remain in office, if he wishes, until 2036. Trump did not protest, and no one expected that he would.

Pretexts for postponing the election are not hard to conjure. There’s no shortage of public-health officials warning of the possibility of alarming medical and social conditions ahead, especially if a second surge of covid-19 arrives in the fall: overrun hospitals, soaring rates of infection and illness, a stalled economy. Thankfully, Trump would face significant, probably insurmountable, obstacles in trying to alter the date of the election. Federal law demands that the ballot take place “on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President.” The Constitution requires that a new Congress gather on January 3rd and a new President be sworn in on January 20th. Legal scholars agree that, even if Trump appealed for emergency powers, he would not have the authority to put off the election.

From the start, Trump has made loyalty to the Leader, not to the law, the ultimate value in government service. In June, 2017, he presided over a Cabinet meeting that made it clear that the ticket of admission was not competence or truth-telling but rather a self-abasing fealty to him. One by one, with the exception of James Mattis, Trump’s Cabinet secretaries and Vice-President spoke of the great privilege of serving an omniscient and very stable genius. It was a tableau that might have seemed over the top in the highest councils of Ashgabat or Pyongyang. In fact, the picture has grown only worse since impeachment, as public servants, who, rightly or not, thought they could guide Trump away from his worst instincts, have been swept from the White House stables.

Once more in the history of this disturbing and destructive Presidency, we depend on democratic institutions, on civil society, on decent men and women of competence and perseverance, to safeguard American democracy and the commonwealth. What gives hope in this crisis is the way that society has responded to the pandemic with a sense of sacrifice and relative calm. What gives hope is a medical professional like Helen Chu, an infectious-disease specialist, in Seattle, who found a way around bureaucratic barriers and led a team of colleagues who conducted crucial tests. It was an act that undoubtedly saved lives. What gives hope is someone like Anthony Fauci, who has the political finesse not to risk the temper of the President but who also has the expertise to speak with authority on what’s demanded of all of us, and who insists on telling the truth about the realities we face.

In hospitals, Tom Bossert told me, “the fire is going to burn brighter and hotter”: the operational tempo will accelerate; absenteeism and the need for isolation among health-care workers will increase as they themselves get sick; doctors and nurses may have to make decisions about triage that will exhaust and demoralize them. Strategic attention to the public-health system will be critical. Large things are required of everyone. F.D.R., in his first Inaugural Address, announced, “This is preëminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly.” That’s still the right place to start.

Source link:https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/trump-truth-and-the-mishandling-of-the-coronavirus-crisis

新冠病毒肺炎疫苗开始人体试验

据法新社最新消息,新冠肺炎疫苗首次人体试验在美国展开。

另据美国约翰斯·霍普金斯大学网站实时统计数据,截至北京时间3月17日7时,全球新冠肺炎确诊病例达181377例,累计死亡病例达7119例。其中,意大利确诊27980例,伊朗确诊14991例,西班牙确诊9942例,韩国确诊8236例,德国确诊7272例。

来源:海外网

http://news.haiwainet.cn/n/2020/0317/c3541093-31744014.html

不服来辩#25 要不要放下一切跟另一半去大城市生活?

祝大家白色情人节快乐~

在这个浪漫的日子里,我们来讨论一个关于爱情的话题。

生活中,很多恋人、伴侣都曾或者正在面对这样一个问题:其中一方由于学业、工作等客观因素,或是兴趣、追求等主观因素,要去大城市生活,另一方该不该抛下原有的一切跟TA走呢?

这并不是一个俗套的爱情问题,而是关于权衡、取舍的令人纠结的现实问题。

是选择放弃原有的生活方式、熟悉的环境、朋友和亲人,为了TA而奔赴陌生的城市、让生活重新开始,像歌词中所说:我爱你,我敢去未知的任何命运。(《我爱你》S.H.E);还是选择目送TA离去,或开始异地的爱情长跑,并继续过自己原有的生活。

你的选择是什么呢?

欢迎大家在评论区各抒己见。参与方式:

觉得要跟随伴侣去大城市的,请在评论区用“emoji👍+你的观点

觉得不要跟随伴侣去大城市的,请在评论区用“emoji👎+你的观点

举个🌰

👍长久的异地感情是很难维持的,两个人会不可避免地以生活在不同的维度。有的时候我们可能过于重视眼前的一些身外条件了。去往陌生的大城市’≠‘重新开始’≠‘一无所有。如果你还年轻的话,如果TA就是你心中对的那个人,不要畏首畏尾,和爱的人去大城市闯一闯,去更广阔的天地看一看;不要局限于现在的成绩圈子,而是去和爱情一起发掘另一种生活的可能性。即使最终真的没能走到一起,也要为了自己的幸福去做一次努力。

👎不该为了任何人去彻底改变原有的生活,如果要去大城市,那么最重要的理由就是我自己想去。并且当一方抛下一切追随另一半,感情中平等的关系已经被打破了,相当于为长久的感情发展埋下了一颗炸弹。付出感不能代替亲密感,追随者委曲求全,被追随者带上枷锁,感情本身就难长久,更不用提是在陌生的大城市了。

巴西总统确诊,系全球首位感染新冠的国家首脑

巴西总统博索纳罗

据《镜报》报道,巴西总统博索纳罗的新冠病毒检测呈阳性,他成为全球首位被确诊患新冠肺炎的国家首脑。

另据美国广播公司12日报道,巴西总统府当天宣布其媒体事务部门负责人法比奥·瓦恩加滕(Fabio Wajngarten)新冠病毒检测呈阳性。他曾随博索纳罗赴美,并和特朗普合影。

来源:

http://news.haiwainet.cn/n/2020/0313/c3541093-31741443.html

 

加拿大总理特鲁多的妻子新冠病毒检测呈阳性

据央视新闻客户端消息,加拿大总理办公室当地时间12日晚向媒体确认,特鲁多总理的妻子苏菲的新冠病毒检测结果呈阳性。

声明说,苏菲现在自我感觉良好,正在针对她的轻微症状接受相关预防措施。

声明表示,特鲁多总理没有出现症状,健康状态良好。不过,作为预防措施,特鲁多总理将继续进行隔离14天。

根据医生的建议,特鲁多目前无需进行新冠病毒检测。医生认为,最近与特鲁多总理接触过的人没有感染风险。

来源:

http://app.cctv.com/special/cportal/detail/arti/index.html?id=ArtiBqXiryQZUWhgfQNbwJi5200313&fromapp=cctvnews&version=804&version=804&allow_comment=1

不服来辩#24 创作者的个人道德与作品应该区分对待吗?

2月28日,第45届法国恺撒奖举办了颁奖典礼,此奖项一直被认为是法国本土的最高电影奖,有法国的“奥斯卡”之称。当颁奖嘉宾宣布最佳导演是著名导演罗曼·波兰斯基时,同时参赛的影片《燃烧女子的肖像》主创瑟琳·席安玛、阿黛拉·哈内尔和其他电影人退场并表示愤怒。随后巴黎发生了持续性的抗议活动。

事件的起因源于导演罗曼·波兰斯基的丑闻,他曾在1977年因强奸13岁的女孩萨曼莎·盖默被捕,虽然表示了认罪,但之后逃到了巴黎并避免被引渡回美国。并被多名女演员指控在不同时间段遭受了来自罗曼·波兰斯基的性侵犯。

但不可否认,罗曼·波兰斯基是一名出色的导演,也是很多人心里的电影之神,指导过多部能写入影史的作品,《雾都孤儿》、《钢琴家》、《冷血惊魂》等等。由此掀起了新一轮关于“创作者的个人道德与作品应该区分对待吗?”的讨论。

威尼斯电影节主席巴尔贝拉表示:“我认为,我们必须对一个人的艺术家身份和他的所作所为之间进行区分。艺术史上有很多艺术家曾犯下不同性质、严重程度不一的罪行。然而,在很多情况下,我们依然会考虑和欣赏他们的艺术作品。我们对待波兰斯基也是一样。在我看来,他是依然活跃在欧洲影坛的仅存的几位大师之一。”

更多的观影者表示,无法接受性侵导演获奖,并在豆瓣对罗曼·波兰斯基的作品打了一星。并表示以后也不会再支持该导演的作品,给他任何形式的奖励都是对受害者的二次伤害,也是对其它针对弱势群体暴行的推波助澜。

你怎么看呢?

来评论区说说你的想法💡

参与方式:

觉得个人道德与作品应该区分对待的,请在评论区用“emoji👍+你的观点”

觉得个人道德与作品不应该区分对待的,请在评论区用“emoji👎+你的观点”

举个🌰:

“👍这次获奖的影评《我控诉》真的很厉害,每帧画面都堪称完美,这样的电影如果不得奖,才会让人觉得失望。导演的私德跟作品无关,马丁路德金的私生活混乱但并不影响他的《I have a dream》至今还鼓舞着很多人”

“👎作品成就和个人品德当然不能分开讲,难道因为他的作品很多人喜爱,就可以将他犯的罪洗刷干净吗?做事先做人,人都没做好就不要做事了。”