Regarding calculated risk:
The attached video specifically discusses the role of such risks in political games in the discipline of political decision-making. All political opposition carries risk, and the safest option is not to oppose at all.
I disagree with the recent article posted by iyouport, which analyzed the arrest of "Program-think”. The article suggests that "Program-think” may have neglected aspects beyond the data security measures, and cited an example that his anonymous approach meant that there was no trustworthy person to help him, so no one could assist him when things went wrong.
I strongly disagree with this point of view. I believe that he is a very successful activist, having been active for 12 years. From a probability perspective, if we consider one year as one cycle (this is a typical cycle of campaigns), he has completed 12 cycles, which has benefited many people. Furthermore, reports indicate that he had sensed something was abnormal long before his arrest, but he chose not to stop his work, which proves that he was prepared.
What iyouport suggests, that one should let a trustworthy person hold their information, actually has a greater chance of leading to arrest in shorter period than twelve years, as in the case of "Program-think”. Opposition movements carry risks, and seeking a foolproof plan is not possible. If one really seeks a foolproof plan, then the best course of action is not to act at all. Therefore, there is a term in English called "take calculated risk", which means to take risks that have been calculated. For "Program-think”, the probability of his arrest, calculated over twelve cycles, was 1/12. Even for myself, I would take such risks because they are better than many other forms of opposition. Pursuing 100% security is equivalent to doing nothing. And believing that one must prepare for arrest by finding someone trustworthy will only increase the risk.
Attachment: Video with English translations:
(Will post English in a following note.)
關於calculated risk（計算內風險）：所附的視頻就是政治決策學科中專門講這類風險在政治博弈中其戰略決策中的關鍵作用。所有政治反對事業都是有風險的，最保險的是你不要去反對。
最近iyouport發的文章，我不能苟同，它分析編程隨想的被捕，講到他可能沒注意到數據以外的其他方面，特別舉例說，他採取匿名的另一面就是沒有一個可信任的人，所以，出事也沒人幫。
我對此深不以為然，我認為他是非常成功的一位反對者，他持續十二年，從概率上來說，若以一年為一個週期（這是運潮的典型週期），他等於是完成了十二個運潮，如此多人受益就是結果。而且報導說他在被捕前很久就感覺到異常，但他選擇不停止他的事業，也就可以證明他是有所準備的。
iyouport所說的讓某個可信的人掌握自己的信息，實際上更大的機會是他十二年也做不到就被逮捕。
反對事業是有風險的，不能尋求萬無一失，若真尋求萬無一失，那最好的是不要做，所以英文有一個詞，take calculated risk 也就是承擔計算內的風險。對編程隨想而言，以十二個週期計算，那是1/12的概率，所以，即使我自己，我也會去承擔這樣的風險，因為它已經高過許多的其他反對方式了。追求100%的保險，那就等於是不做。而認為必須找個人為被捕做準備，則一定會加大風險。
#[0]
對，我們平時說的「失去自我」就是這樣引起的，整個的生活完全沒有了自我，這對反對派來說是致命的，所以就有了反對派把維權當作事業追求，因為維權總是由他人引起的。失去自我的人或組織一生一世都沒希望實現自己的理想，因為「自我」都沒有了，怎麼還談得上目標或理想？
太谢谢了。我确实特别喜欢星空照片，在那种黑暗中闪闪发光的感觉令人感觉特别好。
go all out指的是用尽了所有的精力投入到一件事情上的意思，我这句话指的是：我集中了全部精力在教课上。
但是还是多谢你的⚡️，🐶。
Many thanks to #[1] for your generous sats!
谢谢 #[2] 的慷慨打赏！
地位高的長輩、老師或媒體宣稱政治骯髒所以高雅之人不談政治。然而今天的政治體中沒有任何聲音代表你。你的各種困難經歷不是請願連署遊行示威抗議可以改變的，它是政治體的結果。
政治運動的訴求是要變革政治體而不是針對具體案件的正義。自中國成立至今，其實從未有過真正以政治體的變革為訴求的運動。每個被公認不義的案件都是政治體運轉的結果，只要政治體存在而其中沒有你的聲音，就意味著你的正義訴求不在這個政治體的考慮之中，你最多像外國人或政治體中的“體制外”受奴役者，全球公認的“國家的首要職責是保護個人”的原則與你無關。
若要擁有公義和安全保障，則你的聲音必須能在政治體中被聽到。你或許說反對黨算政治反對，但三十年都不會組織針對政治體的反對運動的黨不是真正的反對黨。只公開表達反對的態度卻不組織任何政治運動的黨至多只算是追求發聲表態，這不是反對。至今我沒有看到有任何真正的反對黨。當然，政治運動都是地下的，但若真有，也不可能三十年都沒有任何政治上的反對運動。
转发一段——公民抵抗和公民维权的不同：
Have gone all out for the teaching and culminated with an exciting report. Thanks to everyone who has supported me. 😸
看了一下，有一個👌的VPN，與中國無關的，叫作VPN Super Unlimited Proxy，是美國人在新加坡註冊的，公司名Mobile Jump Pte Ltd，這個可以下載。我剛測試過了。
That's right. I am not living China and have no lived experience as before.
Oh, fortunately I have long left China for good.
I see your point. It's the pressure I used to share. I hope you will be able to put your own agenda before the interest of the state, and wish you the best of luck in your development.
I do understand that, to be able to work on some jobs, one needs probably 100 per day to cover routine expenses on food and some other costs.
This really depends on what and how you consume for a meal, self cook or eating outside; and even eating outside varies from case to case, e.g., if you sit in formalrestaurants or buy from simple food stalls. So 100 per day may probably be the standard of some middle class individuals, but may be much more than what is required for just basic living on simple foods.
公众一般只会知道在科学界被广泛确认为对的结论性知识，而如果某问题仍在进行中，公众因为其往往不具备判断能力而无法参与。就像演讲人自己承认的，他直到别人的论文发表那一刻都从未参与或听说过该项目，竟凭借星星点点的信息片段就作结论并影响公众，这才是误导公众。这位演讲者如果有能力则必须也做科学实验去证实自己的猜测而不是在推特上跟推然后就做了结论，这是荒唐的做法。
做好自己打算做的事，成为自己希望成为的人，这就可以了。我想我们不应该从道德上衡量别人，世界上有各种各样的情况，每个人都有权按自己的意愿生活，无论你认为是否高尚，这个对每个人都是一样的。