香港三國論壇 [Powered by Invision Power Board]

列印模式主題
按這裡檢視本主題的原始格式

香港三國論壇 > 清談區 > 閒話家常2019

發表者: 懶蛇 Dec 31 2018, 16:01

續http://hksan.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=16390

發表者: 雞仔嘜 Jan 1 2019, 08:41

腰痛

發表者: 雞仔嘜 Jan 20 2019, 09:01

胸痛

發表者: 吳超 Jan 21 2019, 07:04

強帖留名

發表者: Caesar Jan 22 2019, 11:30

新的一年，新的開始

發表者: 雞仔嘜 Jan 27 2019, 13:04

膝痛

發表者: 雞仔嘜 Feb 2 2019, 08:19

腕痛肘痛髋痛

發表者: 參謀ABC Feb 3 2019, 14:41

水

發表者: Caesar Feb 8 2019, 11:18

恭喜發財，身體健康，心想事成！

發表者: 雞仔嘜 Feb 11 2019, 09:56

肚痛

發表者: cdg070089 Feb 16 2019, 12:28

希望今年能够热闹一点。

發表者: 徐元直 Feb 16 2019, 13:56

流浪地球有人看了沒？香港不上映太可惜。

發表者: cdg070089 Feb 16 2019, 14:36

QUOTE (徐元直 @ Feb 16 2019, 21:56 )

流浪地球有人看了沒？香港不上映太可惜。

我在广州旅游的时候顺道看了。总体上来讲剧情结构挺好，特效挺好，背景设定也很好（毕竟有刘工的剧本做底子），但大多数人物塑造都颇为单薄。另一方面很多说这个是“民族主义”、“战狼”的批评我都觉得很无厘头。香港不上映我觉得很大程度上是因为香港本土市场对国产片的歧视。香港跟大陆在文化层面上的隔绝从这个方面也能看得出来。

發表者: 雞仔嘜 Feb 16 2019, 19:49

QUOTE (cdg070089 @ Feb 16 2019, 22:36 )

QUOTE (徐元直 @ Feb 16 2019, 21:56)

流浪地球有人看了沒？香港不上映太可惜。

最後一個辦法失敗後還有最後一個辦法失敗後還有最後一個辦法失敗後還有最後一個辦法

發表者: neveryield Feb 21 2019, 08:22

比隻的士狗高速硬閘到差點炒車，仲要車 cam乜都唔錄到，嬲到震即係上網睇返套的士判官。
卅年都黎緊仲係咁，無得救。

發表者: 雞仔嘜 Feb 27 2019, 12:56

身體生銹常常受傷

發表者: 吳超 Mar 4 2019, 22:49

QUOTE (徐元直 @ Feb 16 2019, 21:56 )

流浪地球有人看了沒？香港不上映太可惜。

香港都有上映，但係票房極差，我諗一方面係香港人無大陸人咁支持返大陸既片，二嚟對喲soft既政治宣傳反感

發表者: 雞仔嘜 Mar 5 2019, 15:33

QUOTE (吳超 @ Mar 5 2019, 06:49 )

QUOTE (徐元直 @ Feb 16 2019, 21:56)

流浪地球有人看了沒？香港不上映太可惜。

香港都有上映，但係票房極差，我諗一方面係香港人無大陸人咁支持返大陸既片，二嚟對喲soft既政治宣傳反感

有部份人真係好有興趣睇既應該過年已經近近地上大陸睇咗

發表者: 耒戈氏 Mar 6 2019, 14:14

冒泡

(其實是小說重寫了

)

發表者: 阿飛 Mar 8 2019, 11:36

QUOTE (徐元直 @ Feb 16 2019, 21:56)

流浪地球有人看了沒？香港不上映太可惜。

特地来回帖我在悉尼去电影院看了两遍

我本身就是大刘粉，除了三体，大刘其他的一些短篇长篇也是非常喜欢的。

出了trailer的时候，还是非常激动的就去看了电影。网上已经有铺天盖地的评论，好的坏的都有，我就不赘述。大概聊一下个人看法：

1. 剧情
电影也就保留原著2成不过没影响侧重点不同。小说侧重在地球派飞船派的分歧以及后期那段的叛军把5000联合政府人员赶去冰面冻死的震撼。大刘的小说里面，这种人类的无知与傲慢是非常常见的。
而电影等于只参考了设定(5个阶段)
虽然不能说改编得完美到剧情无懈可击(大部分煽情还是比较尬的) 但我依然认为这么改也许是目前最好的出路。
小说是建立在读者的想像之上的，读者会自行从文字中解读并在脑海里赋予画面。比如小说一句经典的话：

QUOTE

你走在平原上突然碰到这一堵墙这墙向上无限高向下无限深向左无限远向右无限远。这堵墙是什么？

QUOTE

死亡。

我当时读的时候就浑身起鸡皮疙瘩。可是直观视觉就要靠另外一种模式来引起你的共鸣，有可能是背景音乐，有可能是震撼的画面，有可能是铺垫已久的剧情走势，有可能是演员某个感同身受并完美传译的演技。
所以虽为大刘粉，但我并不太注重电影剧情与原著的差别。而且大刘自己也说过，在他的小说里，人物只是工具，在衬托浩瀚宇宙的无边无际。不过感觉在设定方面应该很详细的描述一下让更多没看过原著的观众更直接的了解故事背景。

2.抓点
特效不用我多说了真的是好莱坞水平。
我感觉更让我看重的，是电影的某些抓点，那些点抓得很对。
在典型的好莱坞电影里基本只有主角团队拯救世界一个人gg全人类完蛋，除了镜头跟着的几个人，剩下全地球都是废物。而小破球相反，主角团队基本一直在失败，但依然这个世界上还有千千万万的“主角团队”在努力并完成别人没有完成的使命。除了吴京发现moss叛逃，还有别人也在突破；除了主角灵光一现想到点燃木星，早就有本应该理所当然想到各种可能性的科学团队连结果都计算出来。这个点抓得非常好，因为我们自己的电影模仿好莱坞还是有差距，而突破他们的固化模式而培养自己的独立风格，才是出路。
剧中我还有个哭点，两次看都流泪了，就是所有救援车掉转回头的那一刻。
有人评价这很套路。我的看法是，与其说套路，不如说这样子设定符合市场的需要。几个默默无闻的角色点燃自己的星星之火，来就成就壮举，这种“套路”观众们爱看，市场接受。

QUOTE

道路千万条安全第一条驾车不规范亲人两行泪

不要小看这一句爆款的句式。在风靡网络的火爆日常中，他会潜移默化的影响着你的驾车警惕度。就好象我记得十几年前我还在香港上小学，有个广告歌：过马路要小心，咪期望快一阵，闯红灯容易出意外，做人系要忍

3.价值
流浪地球的商业价值已经远远的超出了他的艺术价值，这个在数据的结果上已经有目共睹。他的评价会随着时间的推移而改变，但无论如何他都给中国科幻电影甚至未来几年的电影工业化创造了很大的价值。
电影工业化跟电影作品是不一样的。电影作品也能出佳作，比如不久前的我不是药神。这种电影制作周期非常的长，需要不断推敲剧本，等等因素。好莱坞就是电影工业化的楷模，他们有着大量的数据资料经验人力技术，所以他们可以驾驭大IP，可以高产。这点我们还差得很远。
但流浪地球算是一部良心投资，不是把主要的资金投在那些没有演技的流量明星上，而是花钱在了技术和团队上，这点早就了他们现在口碑票房两开花，无可厚非。比起长城，大闹天竺这种投资天价，拍出来就是一坨翔的，我更想看到流浪地球这种电影。

总结
其实也没法总结，因为想说的还有很多很多。但要聊起这个话题，就要牵扯很多很多环境规则客观因素等等。
所以对于流浪地球，我选择吹爆，不是因为这部电影完美无瑕(已经非常好看)，而是因为这部电影的诞生，带来了中国科幻电影发展的一丝曙光！

QUOTE

我能想象到2500年后我子孙的子孙会再次看到半人马星座那三个依序升起的太阳

QUOTE

啊地球我的流浪地球！

發表者: 徐元直 Mar 8 2019, 15:14

很好的影評，香港現在上映了。

最可惜的是爲了控制時長刪掉的地方太多，比如朵朵上地面的真正原因，導致部分劇情有些突兀。聽說在最初劇本設定中地球是爲了躲避小行星連續機動才被木星捕獲的，要是展開來都可以再開一部電影了。

即使如此，也是極爲成功並可載入電影史的作品了。

發表者: 阿飛 Mar 9 2019, 03:48

QUOTE (徐元直 @ Mar 8 2019, 23:14 )

是的大概半小时的剧情被删了。

1.朵朵上地面其实因为想看一眼父母的墓碑，所以韩子昂死前才会回忆其实那每一个人都是朵朵的父母
2.队长坚持去杭州因为他的老婆孩子都在杭州地下城
3.运送过程中，为了保持火石的能源供应，需要靠人把防护服的电量供给火石，所以才会有个工程师突然冻死，因为防护服无法保持温控，而周倩才会说：不能再死人了
4.救援队配枪，因为地面上有反叛军，在苏拉维西据说还有交战一幕

等之后的导演剪辑版吧这的是良心作品

發表者: 雞仔嘜 Mar 10 2019, 21:51

越來越不想說話

發表者: cdg070089 Jun 4 2019, 03:42

年經快樂

發表者: Caesar Jun 5 2019, 19:02

這世上還有比蛇掌門還堅持的人嗎？

發表者: 雞仔嘜 Jun 6 2019, 15:13

QUOTE (Caesar @ Jun 6 2019, 03:02 )

這世上還有比蛇掌門還堅持的人嗎？

生日蛇並非浪得虛名

發表者: 耒戈氏 Jun 13 2019, 06:25

一說到政治，總會變成不能正常地想東西(cannot think straight)，不用一句就變成立場先行，然後腦海裡就彈出與唯一好友斷交的想法。

好像很無理，但這是一個很多年來也沒有過好友的人說的，甚至由小至大也希望孤身一人。

--------

一說到政治，總會變成不能正常地想東西(cannot think straight)，食不言、寢不休、連工作的時候也不斷想。

當然，所有人連被害者家屬的感受也不會去想的時候，會管一個無名的市民嘛？

--------

(按：版管不要搬帖，這帖泛指所有政治討論，不單單是指現在的。)

發表者: 耒戈氏 Jun 15 2019, 07:08

每出現政治爭端，總會不斷想，有東西想說，然後就發現自己的邏輯又多不合理，沒有發現諸多謬誤，然後很快就進入自我眨低的狀態。。。。。。

每說一句話，就被人秒速辯駁，沒有任何意思。

然後你想找多一些資料？整個社會、整個網絡也充斥著謬誤、偏頗、激進言論。就算直去源頭，又會走回去「沒有發現漏洞、沒有發現誤用」的迴圈...

當然，這些永遠也不明白的政治，偏偏就是直接影響我們每天生活的東西。

------

在當同事也在聲援示威的時候，我說了一句話，他們隨即以"damn true"回應。

只是我說的這句話，在這公開的場合地說，絕不合適。

事實原來就是這樣，只是希望，今次最終不要變成那個事實。

------

地球太危險了，返火星去吧..................
..............只是The Martian告訴我們，火星也太危險.................

發表者: Caesar Jun 15 2019, 11:26

因應政治議題，生命力同活力又再注入HKSAN ，
是好也是不好

發表者: 耒戈氏 Jun 17 2019, 11:12

QUOTE (Caesar @ Jun 15 2019, 19:26 )

因應政治議題，生命力同活力又再注入HKSAN ，
是好也是不好

只是某些東西，除了這裡，找不到另一個地方可以安定坐下說出來......

發表者: neveryield Jun 18 2019, 12:30

新換了條排氣管，重獲低扭，排氣音也好聽，只是3000轉以下太吵了，4500以上又換成發動機吵，深夜歸家真怕惹人投訴。

發表者: Caesar Jun 18 2019, 12:53

QUOTE (neveryield @ Jun 18 2019, 20:30 )

新換了條排氣管，重獲低扭，排氣音也好聽，只是3000轉以下太吵了，4500以上又換成發動機吵，深夜歸家真怕惹人投訴。

有錢就是任性！👍🏻

發表者: Pearltea Jun 18 2019, 20:20

QUOTE (耒戈氏 @ Jun 15 2019, 15:08 )

被人秒速辯駁就是沒有意思嗎？
假如對方的觀點是理性的，我倒認為是很有意思，即使"被人秒速辯駁"我也會覺得值得繼續辯論下去的（obviously assuming the other party can carry on a rational and civil debate）。

"The stock investor is neither right or wrong because others agreed or disagreed with him; he is right because his facts and analysis are right." -Benjamin Graham

This is one of my favorite quotes from Benjamin Graham, a very successful investor/economist. Even though he said it from an investment standpoint, it really is true when it comes to dealing with everyday problems.

發表者: willyho Jun 26 2019, 00:06

Equity research is really just a way of pitching sales of a stock, while trying to look like a science. Usually using "scary" equations.

發表者: Pearltea Jun 29 2019, 05:23

QUOTE (willyho @ Jun 26 2019, 08:06)

Equity research is really just a way of pitching sales of a stock, while trying to look like a science. Usually using "scary" equations.

Can you give some context on the "scary" equations?

I do see problems with these equity research reports, not only because they could be biased due to many obvious reasons, but the 'sound' approaches are hardly any indications of providing investors consistent investment return in the short run. Obviously some are better but the majority is mediocre at best:

1- biased/conflict of interest. An analyst is unlikely to issue a "sell" rating on a publicly-traded company, if the firm that the analyst works for ever want the opportunity to raise capitals for the company down the road (investment banking). One can claim that the equity research dept and investment banking dept run separately and do not collaborate, but I'm quite skeptical to believe that the equity research dept could remain neutral when considering the overall corporate strategy and the bigger opportunities.

2- majority is always (almost) wrong. If people make investing decisions/form opinions based on what everybody else knows (public information), then they'd most likely be following the mass, and the vast majority is usually wrong when it comes to investing. Equity research would fall under this category as they only use information made available to the public

3- emotional vs logics. Even the most prominent analysts on wall street, who boast themselves with prolific credentials, have no crystal ball when a stock would rise or fall and often find themselves simply following the price trends. An example would be those covered tech/growth stocks in the past couple of years - they did nothing but raced each other into the oblivion in raising price targets because the market prices told them so. Nobody wants to look like an idiot by setting PT based on fundamentals if the price momentum is dominated by excessive pessimism/optimism. Nothing wrong with that, but then what value do they add by telling people to follow momentum?

發表者: 耒戈氏 Jun 30 2019, 04:11

自從美國指控俄羅斯利用面書等社交媒體操縱選舉，為何沒人會覺得美國會同樣利用社交媒體操縱其他地方的民情?

發表者: neveryield Jul 1 2019, 14:08

QUOTE (Caesar @ Jun 18 2019, 20:53 )

QUOTE (neveryield @ Jun 18 2019, 20:30)

新換了條排氣管，重獲低扭，排氣音也好聽，只是3000轉以下太吵了，4500以上又換成發動機吵，深夜歸家真怕惹人投訴。

有錢就是任性！👍🏻

舊有的已經潰爛，不換不行，這錢是"焗畀" 的。

發表者: neveryield Jul 1 2019, 14:09

“凡不知為何而戰，不知何時可戰，不知何時當止者，雖只一戰，亦可謂之‘好戰’。凡知為何而戰，知何時可戰，何時當止者，雖百戰而不得謂‘好戰’。

（摘自《新宋》｝

發表者: Caesar Jul 1 2019, 15:45

HKSAN鼓勵使用繁體字

發表者: neveryield Jul 1 2019, 22:54

QUOTE (耒戈氏 @ Jun 15 2019, 15:08 )

時代的巨輪要前進，要麼跟從，要麼被碾壓。

蒼天已死，黃天當立，歲在甲子，天下大吉。

發表者: willyho Jul 2 2019, 06:07

QUOTE (Pearltea @ Jun 29 2019, 13:23)

QUOTE (willyho @ Jun 26 2019, 08:06)

Equity research is really just a way of pitching sales of a stock, while trying to look like a science. Usually using "scary" equations.

By "scary equations", I only meant the mathematical models that rely on unattainable precision.

(actually you basically expanded much of what I had in mind. Thank you very much!!)

The only time, I think, when an equity analyst can be trusted is when they have an investment track record, in which they have significant skin in the fund.

While equity research uses public information, it does depend on how that information is used. Also there is a subtle link between 2 and 3. Namely the herd mentality.

The vast majority is wrong when little to no time is actually spent on analysing the annual reports. To disagree with the general consensus of analysts takes courage. Just as proposing contrarian actions.

發表者: willyho Jul 8 2019, 01:48

Just to flesh out things a little more, finance despite the appearances, is not a science. This is despite the mathematical models/equations used. True, the data collected is often empirical, but even so, empirical data is not the only defining feature of science. (In the same way that economics is not a science, since there always seems to be a way to explain away predictions that went wrong) Science experiments have results that can be repeated, and apply to relatively closed systems. Think chemistry for example. If A + B => C, then A and B will always give C under standard conditions. This is taking into consideration the possibilities of side products D and E, and a non-complete yield. IE the yield of C is not 100%. (Standard conditions mean room temperature, atmospheric pressure, humidity etc) Hess's Law is a law because it can predict outcomes, even if the experimental outcomes are not 100% identical to calculations/theoretical expectations.

The issue with finance is that it involves applying closed models to an open system. Even with the most charitable interpretations, that empirical data collected is free from bias, that there is no conflicts of interest and so forth, the data applies to a period in the past/historical. To construct a model using a set of historical data, presumes that past conditions apply to the present. (Similar to predicting population trends) In other words, the financial model assumes no technological changes, no regulation changes, no societal changes etc. The point is that such changes have no effect on scientific "laws", because they are independent of observation.

What a financial model can offer, is a framework for thinking about the financial data. In other words, it is a framework for constructing a narrative about the company, and based on the numbers, the operations of the company. And this is where subjectivity is unavoidable. The various models become the scaffolding of a narrative, but it is down to the analyst on how the narrative is finalised. This becomes more apparent when a model is used to make projections. And this is where finance becomes more like glorified fortune-telling at best, and snake-oil at worse. The point is that all the data outputs from financial projections are assumptions. A model based on careful assumptions at best can only suggest the direction of a trend, as opposed to predicting the direction.

(Think how sports bets are constructed. For example, based on past performances, Arsenal tends to choke when facing teams that are more "gritty", or just simply better. But completely over run a weaker team in terms of skill and physicality. However, occasionally, they can force that vital draw to clinch a top 4 spot. So based on past performances, if Arsenal is playing (say) Barcelona or Real Madrid, then it is almost certain that betting on either Barca or RM is safer, not excluding the chances of an upset)

Hence using statistical techniques, the probabilities of events occurring under pre-specified conditions are recorded and used as case studies. (For example if the financial ratio of a firm is above a certain number, then events A B and C could result. Again based on historical data) That is still not taking into account that the required data is often seen as sensitive and thus difficult to gather. (This perhaps partly explains why the emphasis on "hand-collected" data in finance journal papers, which in turn often requires the researcher's own connections.)

In conclusion, as in Benjamin Graham's The Intelligent Investor, the returns of an investment is proportional to the intellectual effort applied. In plain words, critical thinking, in addition to understanding the numbers, is more key to returns than a fine-tuned finance model.

發表者: Pearltea Jul 12 2019, 06:05

Your arguments seem to resemble a lot of Nassim Taleb’s (the author of The Black Swan) criticisms of the approaches and methodologies that experts and economists utilized in predicting the markets. Despite logical assumptions and empirical approaches, most found themselves wrong because of their failure to account for unforeseen, catastrophic events. (Sort of like risks that have extremely low probability of occurrence, but the potential impact could cripple the world).

I agree pretty much with what you said, I wish I could have more contribution to the discussion but the world of financial markets is not my area of expertise (property & casualty insurance and financial contracts are). However, I do have some mixed opinions about the use of statistics over the years, in an industry that relies heavily on the law of large numbers (predictive modeling). Here are some of my scattered thoughts regarding these models:

-They really do work, but in order to yield a positive return, you do need a sound model with high credibility factor and realistic expectations. Then stick with it 'pretty' religiously. For example, one time I made a financial decision based on 'high probability of success' in the 3^rd quarter, but a low probability event occurred in the 4^th quarter, resulting in a complete wiped-out profitability target and the 'bet' I placed with the insurer resulted in an economic loss of a high five-figure amount instead. I would be lying if I said I didn't feel like a loser at that time, but the important thing was to understand the the theory of the model was not 'broken', but rather the odds did not work out in my favor. I did stick with the approach and over time and it yielded a pretty healthy return. (broke even and more)

-They do require tweaks. Like you said, critical thinking is crucial. It would be silly to assume that one approach would work perpetually. There are times when using historical data might seem to be the right thing to do, but a little bit of 'common sense' would tell you a whole different story. One example would be the wildfire events in the state of California in recent years. Historically there were areas (with super high value homes) where insurers believed that would have very little to almost no chance of being impacted by wildfires. And some insurers over-expanded by having more lenient underwriting guidelines, offering more competitive prices, and doing little loss control. Little did they know the 2017 wildfire was so hard to contain and suppress that even some of those homes (along with hundreds of millions of dollars worth of jewelry, fine art collections, collectibles and antique vehicles) were burned down in flames in just a matter of minutes. Sure that might be a ‘black swan’ event, but why would any company blindly believe in a model and put that much financial exposure to one or few risks without proper risk control was just mind-boggling.

發表者: willyho Jul 16 2019, 03:56

How did you know that I read "The Black Swan"? Although I was thinking more about the books on gfc. I think I'm more of a dabbler in finance, and especially with financial history. (Paper money, come to think of it, is the closest thing to alchemy. Who would've thought that bits of paper can have the same influence as gold did)

If the question is why companies take excessive risk by exposure to extremely unlikely events, part of the reason is easy money, and perhaps the attitude of "it probably won't happen to me, because I can get out of it/I am smarter than average etc"

A case in point is the bankruptcy of pellegrin 百富勤. Based on the investigation report, the top management ignored the warnings of their risk department, and placed their trust on their superstar fund manager, who they headhunted from Lehman Brothers (I think). The problem was that the firm was in transition from a boutique firm to a large corporation. This also meant that what would work at a large US investment bank, may not apply to the firm. Hence despite the short term profits, when the Asian financial crisis hit, the firm was in no shape to survive the storm.

發表者: 耒戈氏 Jul 18 2019, 02:37

批評者永遠也是最大聲，默默支持的人不會有人理。

發表者: 雞仔嘜 Jul 18 2019, 08:06

元朗勁揪

發表者: 吳超 Jul 19 2019, 04:15

QUOTE (雞仔嘜 @ Jul 18 2019, 16:06 )

元朗勁揪

真。勇武

發表者: 吳超 Jul 21 2019, 18:09

元朗勁揪，元朗好波，打得好！下之打得勁喲，威比人睇！

好波！！！

發表者: 吳超 Jul 21 2019, 18:33

給我打，給我往死裡打！

發表者: neveryield Jul 21 2019, 19:19

我正在考慮要不要明天開始帶器械上街，小棍子之類的，車子裏放把刀？

帶有政治性質的暴力行為我雖然不認同，但還能理解；但這種無差別攻擊簡直是恐襲，人家台灣是一個鄭捷，子霸各樂馬這可是幾十個鄭捷，香港還有安全嗎？

發表者: neveryield Jul 31 2019, 18:39

颱風天，准時下班！！！！！

發表者: Caesar Aug 16 2019, 08:00

人生第一個專業試，
事，就是這樣成了

發表者: 耒戈氏 Sep 4 2019, 02:37

當身邊所有人也反對你，不難想像所有人也想害你。

連颱風也死了，連個天不中意我。

突然想，不想活了。

連給我們一個喘息的機會也沒有。

---

連天混亂，觸發了多少抑鬱，不知有多少自殺案已經發生了。

我可否說，各方行徑已經殺害了一群人？

當然，他們只會說，對方錯！那些自殺的？管它的！

---

發表者: neveryield Sep 4 2019, 10:55

QUOTE

管它的！

新衣漂亮不？

發表者: neveryield Dec 25 2019, 13:15

聖誕都無人？有無搞錯？勤力蛇哪了？

祝 HKSAN 諸君步步高陞, 萬事勝意，身體健康，恭喜發財。

發表者: 雞仔嘜 Dec 29 2019, 10:46

聖誕快樂