最近，我在「TIME時代」雜志的專欄文章裡，向全球的讀者介紹了大陸「世界工廠」的+AI自動化升級。隨著勞動力成本的上漲，工業自動化、智慧化勢必是大陸製造業的一劑特效藥。自動化能讓運營成本下降，但仍能讓中國大陸保持生產品質、流程、供應鏈維度的優勢。AI賦能產業升級的願景或許還需多年才能實現，但當下的大陸已經讓未來可期。

以下是專欄文章全文，經TIME授權翻譯轉載：

「中國世界工廠 + AI 的未來」

多年來，中國大陸一直被喻為「世界工廠」，即便在全球其他經濟體紛紛遭遇新冠疫情重擊的2020年，大陸製造產業仍然維持穩健的增長范式，全年產值高達3.854萬億美元，占到全球市場近三分之一。

但如果你腦中的大陸工廠是傳統的「血汗工廠」，是時候修正你的刻板印象了。大陸經濟已經迅速地從疫情衝擊下復蘇，疫情同時催化了各種各樣人工智慧（AI）的應用場景加速實現。自2014年以來，中國大陸的AI專利申請量已經超越美國，至今維持全球領先。在學術領域，中國大陸的AI研究論文發表數量、AI期刊的引用量，也雙雙在近年超過了美國。在產業方面，AI應用在大陸的落地速度超越世界其他國家和地區，具有商業價值的AI應用如今開始百花齊放，整合了軟體、硬體和機器人技術的新一代自動化揭開序曲，AI賦能傳統行業的能量，正在蓄勢待發地重塑各行各業。

人類社會至今經歷了三次不同的工業革命：蒸汽革命、電力革命和資訊革命。我相信，AI將會是推動全球第四次工業革命的核心引擎，在世界各地點燃數位化和自動化的變革，而這波前所未有的硬科技浪潮，將由中國來引領實踐。

由於勞動人口減少和新增人口放緩，中國大陸的傳統產業正面臨著勞動力成本上升的巨大壓力，AI正是解決這個難題的技術解答。人工智慧不僅能夠降低運營成本，提高生產效率，擴大整體產能，還有望能帶來收入的增長。

例如，創新工場投資的廣州極飛科技是一家致力於未來農業的AI科技公司，極飛將無人機、機器人和感測器部署在稻田、麥田和棉花田裡，用技術賦能農業中的播種、農藥噴灑、栽種管理、甚至天氣監測環節。用於作物噴灑的極飛科技R150農業無人車已經被推廣到了英國，應用在蘋果、草莓、黑莓等多種經濟作物的種植流程中。

一些大陸的創新公司正積極把機器人拓展到意想不到的場景。總部位於北京的鎂伽是創新工場投資的生命科學智慧自動化公司，他們和實驗室、製藥公司、高校合作，憑藉AI+機器人技術的積累，用自動化解決方案執行實驗室中勞動密集、重複性高、但需要高度精確的任務和流程，同時機器人作業也將盡最大可能保護實驗室人員降低實驗過程中的感染風險。

除了創業公司，我們看到幾家成熟的龍頭企業也開始積極擁抱AI。創新工場參與了有28年歷史的中力電動叉車，這家頭部的鋰電叉車製造商已經推出了能夠在工廠、倉庫自主運行的無人叉車，並且無需對運行環境進行改造，能快速實現從手動到電動到自動駕駛的搬運賦能創新。此外，擁有50多年歷史的領先客車製造商-宇通集團，與自動駕駛獨角獸企業-文遠知行戰略合作，已在大陸三個城市的馬路上運行全無人駕駛小巴。

接著會發生什麼？我大膽預見，在更長遠的未來，機器人和AI將接管大多數產品的製造、設計、交付甚至營銷——很可能將生產成本降低到和原物料成本相差無幾。未來的機器人有能力自我複製和自我修復，甚至做到部分自我反覆運算設計。房屋和公寓將交由AI主導設計，使用預製建築模塊，交由機器人像搭積木似地築樓蓋房。無人公交、無人摩托等隨傳隨到的自動化未來交通系統，能將我們安全無虞地送達想去的地方。

這些願景成為現實或許還需要多年，但此時的大陸正在積極鋪墊引領新一代自動化革命的基石。可期的是，中國工廠的實力將不僅僅體現在產能上，而將逐步彰顯在智慧上。

本文經「TIME時代」授權進行中文編譯，原文如下：

China Is Still the World's Factory — And It's Designing the Future With AI

BY KAI-FU LEE

For many years now, China has been the world’s factory. Even in 2020, as other economies struggled with the effects of the pandemic, China’s manufacturing output was $3.854 trillion, up from the previous year, accounting for nearly a third of the global market.

But if you are still thinking of China’s factories as sweatshops, it’s probably time to change your perception. The Chinese economic recovery from its short-lived pandemic blip has been boosted by its world-beating adoption of artificial intelligence (AI). After overtaking the U.S. in 2014, China now has a significant lead over the rest of the world in AI patent applications. In academia, China recently surpassed the U.S. in the number of both AI research publications and journal citations. Commercial applications are flourishing: a new wave of automation and AI infusion is crashing across a swath of sectors, combining software, hardware and robotics.

As a society, we have experienced three distinct industrial revolutions: steam power, electricity and information technology. I believe AI is the engine fueling the fourth industrial revolution globally, digitizing and automating everywhere. China is at the forefront in manifesting this unprecedented change.

Chinese traditional industries are confronting rising labor costs thanks to a declining working population and slowing population growth. The answer is AI, which reduces operational costs, enhances efficiency and productivity, and generates revenue growth.

For example, Guangzhou-based agricultural-technology company XAG, a Sinovation Ventures portfolio company, is sending drones, robots and sensors to rice, wheat and cotton fields, automating seeding, pesticide spraying, crop development and weather monitoring. XAG’s R150 autonomous vehicle, which sprays crops, has recently been deployed in the U.K. to be used on apples, strawberries and blackberries.

Some companies are rolling out robots in new and unexpected sectors. MegaRobo, a Beijing-based life-science automation company also backed by Sinovation Ventures, designs AI and robots to safely perform repetitive and precise laboratory work in universities, pharmaceutical companies and more, reducing to zero the infection risk to lab workers.

It’s not just startups; established market leaders are also leaning into AI. EP Equipment, a manufacturer of lithium-powered warehouse forklifts founded in Hangzhou 28 years ago, has with Sinovation Ventures’ backing launched autonomous models that are able to maneuver themselves in factories and on warehouse floors. Additionally Yutong Group, a leading bus manufacturer with over 50 years’ history, already has a driverless Mini Robobus on the streets of three cities in partnership with autonomous vehicle unicorn WeRide.

Where is all this headed? I can foresee a time when robots and AI will take over the manufacturing, design, delivery and even marketing of most goods—potentially reducing costs to a small increment over the cost of materials. Robots will become self-replicating, self-repairing and even partially self-designing. Houses and apartment buildings will be designed by AI and use prefabricated modules that robots put together like toy blocks. And just-in-time autonomous public transportation, from robo-buses to robo-scooters, will take us anywhere we want to go.

It will be years before these visions of the future enter the mainstream. But China is laying the groundwork right now, setting itself up to be a leader not only in how much it manufactures, but also in how intelligently it does it.

Source：https://time.com/6084158/china-ai-factory-future/

各位，生成器也許已沒有用了。選管會一天就收到4500封電郵。看來，大家炸他電郵還是有點用的。

以下乃沈大師言為「內部AO提供範本」。的確是官話文章，請先仔細閱讀，才選擇是否發出電郵吧。

你還有5小時。

请广传，好人一生平安。

[#官方資訊] 早前分享了一位高級政務官朋友就《逃犯條例》爭議的感受，得到數千轉載，迴響十分熱烈，也有不少公務員私訊回應。本頁對象一直以黃藍以外的專業人士為主，雖然平日只分享國際視野資訊，但在關鍵時刻，也希望為一些平日對社會抽離的朋友，提供更多資訊參考。以下是我的另一位AO朋友擔心局勢惡化，希望以自己的方式真正為特區政府服務，因此以私人身份草擬的意見書，回應特區政府選舉管理委員會關於區議會選舉的官方諮詢，並使用了完美官僚理據、格式和文法，就DQ候選人提供了詳細意見。根據官方資訊，《逃犯條例》收到4500份意見書，其中3000份「贊成」，因此發出意見書並非毫無價值。這位AO表示，大家可以直接使用這格式，根據個人觀點加減內容直接電郵遞交，因為香港人大家都忙，這過程只需一分鐘，應該最符合成本效益。截止日期是7月10日或之前，請廣傳，好人一生平安。

10 July 2019

Chairman
Electoral Affairs Commission (EAC)
By Email: eacenq@eac.hk

Dear Chairman,

Public consultation on District Council Election proposed guidelines

I write to object to Chapter 3 of the Proposed Guidelines, as it gives Government an unjust, unfair, and unchecked power to disqualify any candidate during the nomination period by reason of Government’s own political motives.

Chapter 3.1 of the Proposed Guidelines says that : “Under the law, the validity of a candidate’s nomination is to be determined by the Returning Officer (RO). The EAC is neither empowered nor involved in the making of such decision and would not provide any advice on the decision made by the RO”.

Chapter 3.9(b) of the Proposed Guidelines describes the requirement by which a candidate must declare (through signing a “Confirmation Form” by the EAC) that he would uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the HKSAR.

It is totally unclear whether a Confirmation Form duly signed by a candidate is itself sufficient to discharge the candidate’s duty to declare his willingness to uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the HKSAR when he is elected to the office.

Previous elections showed that an RO, who was a civil servant (pitched at Administrative Officer Staff Grade C / District Officer) appointed to the role of RO prior to the election, could make subjective and arbitrary judgment about a candidate’s state of mind and political orientation, with selective reference to some or a few past writings, speeches, statements, expression of opinions, posts in social media platforms in relation to the candidate, instead of merely looking at a Confirmation Form duly signed.

I find it outrageous to see that Ms. Anne Teng, then District Officer (Eastern) appointed to the role of RO in a legislative council by-election last year, could refuse to acknowledge a confirmation form signed by Miss Agnes Chow Ting and disqualify her, citing absurd and arbitrary reasons with reference to some of Miss Chow’s previous remarks or those of her political party, and without giving Miss Chow a fair opportunity to respond to those reasons uttered unreasonably by the RO.

The Proposed Guidelines shows that the EAC has failed its duty to introduce any additional safeguard or measures to plug this unreasonable, unlawful and unconstitutional loophole, which may still be freely exploited by any RO in the next election driven by bad faith and political motive.

It is unacceptable that the EAC could confess that it is “neither empowered nor involved in the making of such decision and would not provide any advice on the decision made by the RO” (Chapter 3.1). I question how the EAC can still “ensure that an election is conducted openly, fairly and honestly at all times” – its statutory duty enshrined in the Electoral Affairs Commission Ordinance - when it is not involved in scrutinising or monitoring the exercise of an RO’s power in disqualifying any candidate at the RO’s own political preference.

The Guidelines did not describe in detail how an RO could, on his or her own, research during the short nomination period the political belief and past sayings of any candidate. The Guidelines are also silent as to whether the RO would have received biased or secret advice from any agency such as Department of Justice, Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, Home Affairs Department, Information Services Department, etc., which may have compiled a detailed recollection of a candidate’s previous remarks in advance. It was suggested by some that such a compilation of speech or opinion records prepared by any agency other than the RO could have assisted the RO unlawfully in reaching a dangerous disqualification decision to deprive a candidate of the right to stand for the election.

I must remind the EAC that the right to stand for election is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights. The United Nations Human Rights Committee’s General Comment 25 also states that “political opinion may not be used as a ground to deprive any person of the right to stand for election.”

I am disappointed to see that the proposed Guidelines have not offered anything substantive to protect a candidate from the RO’s unlawful interference in the election by disqualifying candidates he or she dislikes. The EAC must look at this carefully to see what it can do.

The current remedy about determining the lawfulness of an RO’s disqualification decision through an election petition to be adjudicated later by the court one or two years after the actual election is totally unsatisfactory, with the lapse of time which delays the timely delivery of a just outcome.

I stress that I object to Chapter 3 of the Proposed Guidelines in its entirety. I urge you to review all the processes described in Chapter 3 again and independently. In so doing, you must resist all political considerations wrongly dictated by the Chief Executive, Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, Department of Justice, or other government agency seeking to disturb the fairness and integrity of the forthcoming district council election.

Yours sincerely,

XXXX

更新：有熱心網友翻譯為中文版，並對原文作出修訂，請隨便share／修改：

10 July 2019

選舉管理委員會主席 鈞啓

選舉管理委員會主席鈞鑒： 關於區議會選舉活動建議指引公眾諮詢事宜

本人謹致函對建議指引第三章表達反對意見。建議指引第三章將賦予政府不公平、不公正以及不被箝制的權力，容許政府於提名階段取消香港市民的參選資格，以迎合政府自身的政治目的。

建議指引第三章第一部分（3.1）指：「根據法例，候選人的提名是否有效 ，完全是由選舉主任作出決定，選管會無權並一向沒有參與， 亦不會給予任何意見。」
建議指引第三章3.9(b) 要求候選人透過簽署選管會擬備的確認書表明他／她擁護《基本法》並保證對香港特別行政區效忠。

至於候選人是否能夠簽署確認書就能滿足擁護《基本法》並保證對香港特別行政區效忠的要求，建議指引對此完全沒有清晰交代。

過往選舉顯示，首長級丙級政務官／民政事務專員級別的公務員於選舉前獲委任為選舉主任，便能夠就候選人的思緒及政治取向作出主觀且隨意獨斷的決定，並只需揀選候選人往日曾經發表的文章、言論、宣言、意見表達、社交媒體帖文以及社交媒體專頁發佈關於對候選人的帖文穿鑿附會，當作輔證，而非僅以候選人是否有簽署確認書為單獨基礎作判斷。

去年立法會補選，時任東區民政事務專員鄧如欣獲委任為選舉主任，居然拒絕周庭小姐簽署的確認書，以周庭小姐及其所屬政黨昔日的言論去佐證選舉主任荒唐的理由，去褫奪周庭小姐的參選資格，並且沒有給予周庭小姐公平機會回應選舉主任的無理指控，實在令人憤慨。

由建議指引可見，選舉管理委員會並無引入任何措施或保障，去堵塞上述不合理、不合法、不合憲的漏洞。今後選舉主任依然可以使用此漏洞，依據其個人的政治目的或理念，惡意褫奪任何香港市民的參選資格。

選舉管理委員會於第三章第一部分（3.1）指：「根據法例，候選人的提名是否有效 ，完全是由選舉主任作出決定，選管會無權並一向沒有參與， 亦不會給予任何意見。」此點完全不可接受。當選舉管理委員會對選舉主任按其個人政治取向褫奪候選人參選資格的權力不作任何箝制、監察或審查， 又能如何履行其法定職責，「確保在香港舉行的選舉是以公開、公平和誠實的方式進行」呢？

建議指引並無對選舉主任如何可於短促的提名期內研究並審查任何候選人的政治理念及昔日言論有任何著墨。 建議指引亦未有論及選舉主任會否收到其他機構的秘密意見或者偏頗意見。上述的其他機構，例如律政司、內地及政制事務局、民政事務總署或政府新聞處等，可能預先詳細記錄相關候選人的昔日言論。據悉，上述由第三方準備的詳細記錄可能不合法地導致選舉主任作出褫奪候選人選舉資格的危險決定。

本人必須提醒選舉管理委員會，被選舉權是獲香港基本法及香港人權法案保障的基本權利。聯合國人權事務委員會第25號一般性意見亦指出：「不得以政治見解為由剝奪任何人參加競選的權利。」

本人對建議指引並未就保障候選人不被選舉主任按其個人喜惡褫奪資格，防止選舉主任非法干預選舉採取任何措施深感失望。選舉管理委員會必須詳細檢視自己對上述問題有何解決方法。

就選舉主任褫奪參選資格的合法性，目前透過選舉呈請，並於選舉完結一兩年後由法庭裁決的安排實在強差人意。當中所耗的時間令公義遲來。
本人對建議指引第三章完全反對。本人懇求主席重新並獨立審視第三章所包含的所有程序。在重新審視的時候，懇請閣下撇除並抗拒所有政治考量，尤其是來自行政長官、政制及事務內地局、律政司及其他政府機構企圖干預未來區議會選舉的誠信和公平性的政治考量。

敬祝 鈞安 XXXXXXXX 敬上

2019年7月9日

學習官僚語言其實好緊要

[#官方資訊] 早前分享了一位高級政務官朋友就《逃犯條例》爭議的感受，得到數千轉載，迴響十分熱烈，也有不少公務員私訊回應。本頁對象一直以黃藍以外的專業人士為主，雖然平日只分享國際視野資訊，但在關鍵時刻，也希望為一些平日對社會抽離的朋友，提供更多資訊參考。以下是我的另一位AO朋友擔心局勢惡化，希望以自己的方式真正為特區政府服務，因此以私人身份草擬的意見書，回應特區政府選舉管理委員會關於區議會選舉的官方諮詢，並使用了完美官僚理據、格式和文法，就DQ候選人提供了詳細意見。根據官方資訊，《逃犯條例》收到4500份意見書，其中3000份「贊成」，因此發出意見書並非毫無價值。這位AO表示，大家可以直接使用這格式，根據個人觀點加減內容直接電郵遞交，因為香港人大家都忙，這過程只需一分鐘，應該最符合成本效益。截止日期是7月10日或之前，請廣傳，好人一生平安。

10 July 2019

Chairman
Electoral Affairs Commission (EAC)
By Email: eacenq@eac.hk

Dear Chairman,

Public consultation on District Council Election proposed guidelines

I write to object to Chapter 3 of the Proposed Guidelines, as it gives Government an unjust, unfair, and unchecked power to disqualify any candidate during the nomination period by reason of Government’s own political motives.

Chapter 3.1 of the Proposed Guidelines says that : “Under the law, the validity of a candidate’s nomination is to be determined by the Returning Officer (RO). The EAC is neither empowered nor involved in the making of such decision and would not provide any advice on the decision made by the RO”.

Chapter 3.9(b) of the Proposed Guidelines describes the requirement by which a candidate must declare (through signing a “Confirmation Form” by the EAC) that he would uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the HKSAR.

It is totally unclear whether a Confirmation Form duly signed by a candidate is itself sufficient to discharge the candidate’s duty to declare his willingness to uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the HKSAR when he is elected to the office.

Previous elections showed that an RO, who was a civil servant (pitched at Administrative Officer Staff Grade C / District Officer) appointed to the role of RO prior to the election, could make subjective and arbitrary judgment about a candidate’s state of mind and political orientation, with selective reference to some or a few past writings, speeches, statements, expression of opinions, posts in social media platforms in relation to the candidate, instead of merely looking at a Confirmation Form duly signed.

I find it outrageous to see that Ms. Anne Teng, then District Officer (Eastern) appointed to the role of RO in a legislative council by-election last year, could refuse to acknowledge a confirmation form signed by Miss Agnes Chow Ting and disqualify her, citing absurd and arbitrary reasons with reference to some of Miss Chow’s previous remarks or those of her political party, and without giving Miss Chow a fair opportunity to respond to those reasons uttered unreasonably by the RO.

The Proposed Guidelines shows that the EAC has failed its duty to introduce any additional safeguard or measures to plug this unreasonable, unlawful and unconstitutional loophole, which may still be freely exploited by any RO in the next election driven by bad faith and political motive.

It is unacceptable that the EAC could confess that it is “neither empowered nor involved in the making of such decision and would not provide any advice on the decision made by the RO” (Chapter 3.1). I question how the EAC can still “ensure that an election is conducted openly, fairly and honestly at all times” – its statutory duty enshrined in the Electoral Affairs Commission Ordinance - when it is not involved in scrutinising or monitoring the exercise of an RO’s power in disqualifying any candidate at the RO’s own political preference.

The Guidelines did not describe in detail how an RO could, on his or her own, research during the short nomination period the political belief and past sayings of any candidate. The Guidelines are also silent as to whether the RO would have received biased or secret advice from any agency such as Department of Justice, Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, Home Affairs Department, Information Services Department, etc., which may have compiled a detailed recollection of a candidate’s previous remarks in advance. It was suggested by some that such a compilation of speech or opinion records prepared by any agency other than the RO could have assisted the RO unlawfully in reaching a dangerous disqualification decision to deprive a candidate of the right to stand for the election.

I must remind the EAC that the right to stand for election is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights. The United Nations Human Rights Committee’s General Comment 25 also states that “political opinion may not be used as a ground to deprive any person of the right to stand for election.”

I am disappointed to see that the proposed Guidelines have not offered anything substantive to protect a candidate from the RO’s unlawful interference in the election by disqualifying candidates he or she dislikes. The EAC must look at this carefully to see what it can do.

The current remedy about determining the lawfulness of an RO’s disqualification decision through an election petition to be adjudicated later by the court one or two years after the actual election is totally unsatisfactory, with the lapse of time which delays the timely delivery of a just outcome.

I stress that I object to Chapter 3 of the Proposed Guidelines in its entirety. I urge you to review all the processes described in Chapter 3 again and independently. In so doing, you must resist all political considerations wrongly dictated by the Chief Executive, Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, Department of Justice, or other government agency seeking to disturb the fairness and integrity of the forthcoming district council election.

Yours sincerely,

XXXX

更新：有熱心網友翻譯為中文版，並對原文作出修訂，請隨便share／修改：

10 July 2019

選舉管理委員會主席 鈞啓

選舉管理委員會主席鈞鑒： 關於區議會選舉活動建議指引公眾諮詢事宜

本人謹致函對建議指引第三章表達反對意見。建議指引第三章將賦予政府不公平、不公正以及不被箝制的權力，容許政府於提名階段取消香港市民的參選資格，以迎合政府自身的政治目的。

建議指引第三章第一部分（3.1）指：「根據法例，候選人的提名是否有效 ，完全是由選舉主任作出決定，選管會無權並一向沒有參與， 亦不會給予任何意見。」
建議指引第三章3.9(b) 要求候選人透過簽署選管會擬備的確認書表明他／她擁護《基本法》並保證對香港特別行政區效忠。

至於候選人是否能夠簽署確認書就能滿足擁護《基本法》並保證對香港特別行政區效忠的要求，建議指引對此完全沒有清晰交代。

過往選舉顯示，首長級丙級政務官／民政事務專員級別的公務員於選舉前獲委任為選舉主任，便能夠就候選人的思緒及政治取向作出主觀且隨意獨斷的決定，並只需揀選候選人往日曾經發表的文章、言論、宣言、意見表達、社交媒體帖文以及社交媒體專頁發佈關於對候選人的帖文穿鑿附會，當作輔證，而非僅以候選人是否有簽署確認書為單獨基礎作判斷。

去年立法會補選，時任東區民政事務專員鄧如欣獲委任為選舉主任，居然拒絕周庭小姐簽署的確認書，以周庭小姐及其所屬政黨昔日的言論去佐證選舉主任荒唐的理由，去褫奪周庭小姐的參選資格，並且沒有給予周庭小姐公平機會回應選舉主任的無理指控，實在令人憤慨。

由建議指引可見，選舉管理委員會並無引入任何措施或保障，去堵塞上述不合理、不合法、不合憲的漏洞。今後選舉主任依然可以使用此漏洞，依據其個人的政治目的或理念，惡意褫奪任何香港市民的參選資格。

選舉管理委員會於第三章第一部分（3.1）指：「根據法例，候選人的提名是否有效 ，完全是由選舉主任作出決定，選管會無權並一向沒有參與， 亦不會給予任何意見。」此點完全不可接受。當選舉管理委員會對選舉主任按其個人政治取向褫奪候選人參選資格的權力不作任何箝制、監察或審查， 又能如何履行其法定職責，「確保在香港舉行的選舉是以公開、公平和誠實的方式進行」呢？

建議指引並無對選舉主任如何可於短促的提名期內研究並審查任何候選人的政治理念及昔日言論有任何著墨。 建議指引亦未有論及選舉主任會否收到其他機構的秘密意見或者偏頗意見。上述的其他機構，例如律政司、內地及政制事務局、民政事務總署或政府新聞處等，可能預先詳細記錄相關候選人的昔日言論。據悉，上述由第三方準備的詳細記錄可能不合法地導致選舉主任作出褫奪候選人選舉資格的危險決定。

本人必須提醒選舉管理委員會，被選舉權是獲香港基本法及香港人權法案保障的基本權利。聯合國人權事務委員會第25號一般性意見亦指出：「不得以政治見解為由剝奪任何人參加競選的權利。」

本人對建議指引並未就保障候選人不被選舉主任按其個人喜惡褫奪資格，防止選舉主任非法干預選舉採取任何措施深感失望。選舉管理委員會必須詳細檢視自己對上述問題有何解決方法。

就選舉主任褫奪參選資格的合法性，目前透過選舉呈請，並於選舉完結一兩年後由法庭裁決的安排實在強差人意。當中所耗的時間令公義遲來。
本人對建議指引第三章完全反對。本人懇求主席重新並獨立審視第三章所包含的所有程序。在重新審視的時候，懇請閣下撇除並抗拒所有政治考量，尤其是來自行政長官、政制及事務內地局、律政司及其他政府機構企圖干預未來區議會選舉的誠信和公平性的政治考量。

敬祝 鈞安 XXXXXXXX 敬上

2019年7月9日

HenHen TV: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-KJZnCj21OqXlcginStk3Q

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/dw_kid12/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/deepwebkid/?modal=admin_todo_tour

Subscribe: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8vabPSRIBpwSJEMAPCnzVQ?sub_confirmation=1

Youtube/互聯網上不能搜尋的一個字是什麼?

SEO Search engine optimization是很多Digital Marketing公司研究關鍵字與搜尋結果的關係. 像Google或Youtube這些公司會重金禮聘一些叫Crawlers的軟件爬到互聯網確認一些推薦的網站.

作為1個二三線的Youtuber我也常常爬到search engine看看什麼關鍵字最受歡迎

找到美國Youtuber Blameitorjorge最近出了一條十分Viral的影片. 有關網上一個不可以打的一個字

[都巿傳說]

2015年11月討論區出現了一份由匿名網友分享一個神秘女子的故事. 故事中的女生會常常在不同的公司做臨時工作. 其中一次她於一間快倒閉的電腦程式設計公司幫手清潔和收拾. 她在收拾紙箱時發現其中一個箱子上寫了 ‘E,R,A,T,A,S’ Eratas一個字. 公司剩下只有一名老員工, 他叫這位女子不淮跟任何人提起Eratas. 因爲公司電腦?面原來有種代碼專門追查有搜尋這個字的員工然後將他們解僱.

同年12月討論區出現了另一個匿名信息問有關Erratas, 但寫法拼發多了一個R. 話說2000年至2010年期間, 多名大公司的人力資源部門Human resources會用一個名Erratas的電腦程式去做出對員工一些侵權的行為. 是將每位員工的所有資料全交給一個神秘部門.
涉及的企業有: 美國輸送公司UPS和美國能源公司Ecolab. 這個指控出來之後也只是被當成其中一個網上陰謀論.

直至16’年1月網路世界另一邊, 一個音樂討論區出現了一個名’暗網’ 的奇怪曲風. 是把極少人觀看次數的Youtube片剪接成為背景音樂. 當中提供了9個Youtube影片link. 9個影片裡面最不可思議是Youtuber Chronosforlife的影片: Youtube is MONITORING and controlling my life. 當中這位無名Youtuber提出的個案到現在也是對ERRATAS最恐怖的真實解釋.

該名Youtuber死去的母親最愛的電影就是 ‘侏羅記公園’ 她上載的 ‘侏羅記’ 影片該Youtuber指被Youtube的程式針對. 詳情是: 母親多條深愛的侏羅記影片被Youtube刪除. 相信和本身強大的版權系統是有關係. 該Youtuber另一條有關 ‘侏羅記’ 第三集的影片尾段有一段莫斯密碼, 被翻譯後是: Hollywood astral projection clinic. 到現在也沒有人知道是什麼意思.
同時Chronosforlife上載第三條名Here goes nothing影片, description寫著不能說的那個禁字, 試著會不會被Youtube刪除. 結果沒有. 雖然該影片今時今日還是存在, 但成功帶動了一陣想破解這個案件的熱潮. 主因是Here goes nothing影片中的字幕有一段地址: 200 Corbin KY 40219. 被揭出該地址屬於一隊叫KFC Murder Chicks的女子獨立樂隊.

[ARG]
說到這裡, 本人認為跟1年前調查的Ashvlogs事件相似. 一大堆神秘後女主只是一位演員. 事件亦只是為娛樂的ARG遊戲. 由其是這個故事開頭第一個找到Erratas那位女生自我介紹時也說自己是樂隊成員, 和一個毛君島強姦犯Tod Ellsworth的素描有關後,
多位網民表示整件事只為了宣傳KFC Murder chicks樂隊或只是ARG遊戲.

但如果我跟你講KFC Murder Chicks整個網頁之後完全消失, 一個名Exer Erb的Youtube頻道因提及Erratas無辜被Youtube刪除, 多個提及Erratas這個字的討論區被禁止出現, 那Erratas是否真的只是KFC murder chucks一個巨大的宣傳計劃啊? 還是真的是現在陰謀論所講的解釋啊?

[陰謀論]

到2019年9月Youtuber Blameitonjorge講關於此事件的影片到現在有超過一百萬觀看次數. 重新燃起大家對此事件的看法.
普遍對於Erratas這個字的解釋是他是大企業背後用來監視員工行爲的東西. 但從細節可以看到這幕後黑手可能更深入.

如果他們真的對政府和郵局這樣不相任, 那我可以回想到初時第一間被指跟Erratas事件有關的UPS公司. 美國政府真的是用這種不同方式控制一些大企業監視所有人嗎? 而Erratas是不是我們對這個問題的答案的唯一線索呢?

...有想過把Erratas倒轉寫嗎?