2026年3月26日 星期四

最近幾個月,很多人應該都跟我一樣。 掛在螢幕前, 沉浸在傳說中 vibe coding 的精神時光屋裡。 看著游標閃爍, 看著一段又一段的邏輯在 AI 的加持下行雲流水般生成。

那種感覺,就像是擁有了超能力。 大腦只需要負責發想, 剩下的繁文縟節,Claude 都幫你處理得服服貼貼。

然後,啪一聲。 Claude 開始連續不穩,接著迎來了史詩級的大當機。 精神時光屋的電源被無情拔掉, 強制把所有人瞬間踢回殘酷的現實世界。

沒有了 Claude, 很多人的工作流程突然卡彈, 看著空白的編輯器,頓時不知道該怎麼起頭。

無處安放的焦慮與中斷的心流, 只能往哪裡發洩?沒錯,就是 Reddit。

看著 r/ClaudeAI 上滿坑滿谷的災情回報與哀嚎, 我突然有一種很奇妙的既視感。 我發現,鄉民終究是鄉民。

不管這些開發者與使用者現在是坐在多倫多的咖啡廳, 還是柏林的共同工作空間; 不管他們的英文、法文、俄文有多流利、多好到爆, 遇到當機時的那種崩潰、狂酸、焦慮與無奈, 跟我們平常看到的模樣,完全一模一樣。

他們不會講正體中文, 也不會用注音文打出各種情緒語氣, 但字裡行間那股濃濃的鄉民味, 根本毫無國界之分。不要再牽拖什麼文化差異或是語言隔閡了, 我隨便挑幾個熱門留言, 用我們台灣鄉民的語氣翻譯一下, 你就會懂我在說什麼:

「對不起大家,我今天剛刷卡升級 Pro,一刷下去伺服器就炸了,我的錯。」(這根本就是「對不起我今天洗車所以下雨」的 AI 版,原來老外也信地獄倒楣鬼這一套。)

「我盯著空白的畫面發呆了半小時,發現沒有 Claude 在旁邊,我竟然連一行 Code 都不會寫了...我現在就像沒有手把就不會打電動的廢物。」(這位大哥,你的焦慮完全穿透螢幕了,科技巨嬰的誕生不分國籍。)

「這時間點太巧了吧!一定是 Anthropic 的資料中心有小動物跑進去了!」 (到底是水逆?資料中心是台電蓋的?乖乖放錯顏色或過期了?這種陰謀論的牽拖語氣熟不熟悉?這不就是我們常聽到的「千錯萬錯都是扁維拉的錯」嗎?牽拖的邏輯放諸四海皆準啊!)

在伺服器 500 錯誤與無法連線的畫面面前, 全人類的靈魂都是平等的。 大家遇到斷線,都還是一樣的鄉民。

但話說回來,如果有一天 AI 真的穩到不行, 可以自動化接手很多我們的工作之後, 身為鄉民的我們到底除了繼續當鄉民還能做什麼?

上週我錄音了一集 Podcast。 題目是講那些「AI 翻譯可能還做不好的事」。 我邀請了超過 20 年經驗,到現在都還在第一線的元首級口譯員葉妍伶(Renee), 來聊聊她接下華視陳信聰製播的田秋堇專訪翻譯案。

陳信聰在臉書上求助,因為他自己用 AI 翻譯搞了一整個晚上,最後發現慘不忍睹只好放棄。 為什麼現在的 AI 這麼強大,這種字幕卻翻不好? 因為有太多文化底蘊跟語境,是目前的 AI 無法直翻,必須靠人類「意譯」才能讓外國人看懂的。

Renee 在節目中舉幾個非常精采的例子:

「唐僧」的緊箍咒效應:如果有人說他心裡的聲音像「唐僧」。 台灣人一聽秒懂,就是那種碎碎念、嘮嘮叨叨的緊箍咒感覺。 但如果你讓 AI 直翻成 Tang Monk,老外絕對一頭霧水。 Renee 的翻法是:講到 Journey to the West(西遊記)裡那個管得住 Monkey King(孫悟空)的 monk。 幾秒鐘內,就把那種「一直被碎念、被責備」的感覺精準傳達給英文觀眾。

從「景美」到「公館」的遙遠距離:訪談裡提到 1980 年代從景美搭車到公館,再換車去信義路。 這對當時的台北人來說,意象是路途漫長、轉車複雜的奔波感。 AI 如果直翻地名拼音,外國觀眾只會看到無意義的單字。 所以 Renee 把景美翻成 suburban(郊區/蛋白區),公館翻成 into the city(進城),信義路翻成 downtown(市區)。 這才把當年那種「跋山涉水」的時代感翻譯出來。

影片中提到了「烏雲與留白」。 水墨畫裡有一種手法,是透過筆墨把烏雲堆疊起來,就算沒畫出月亮,也能看出月亮在哪。 這意境讓 Renee 想到了 CSI 犯罪現場,把烏雲翻譯成「間接證據」(circumstantial evidence)。 用間接證據,指出了明晃晃的月亮。 當我看到這行英文字幕出現,我心裡只有讚嘆。

如果我們要能輕鬆享受那些真的屬於人才能體會的內容, 是多麽需要專業的工作者,在這些細節下多琢磨、下功夫。 那些都是自動化以後真正困難,也才值得享受的精品。

下次如果你的 AI token 又不小心用光了, 或者是像今天一樣伺服器大斷線、把你踢出精神時光屋的時候, 與其在螢幕前焦慮當個無助的鄉民, 不妨考慮戴上耳機聽一下這集節目, 或是直接去看看這支耗費無數人心血打磨出來的專訪影片吧!(連結下收)

He saved 500 baby spiders from a Maine winter. Then he broke a million children's hearts—and taught them the most important lesson they'd ever learn.

E.B. White stood in his barn in Allen Cove, Maine, holding a pair of scissors and an egg sac. The grey spider who'd built it was dead—hanging motionless in the doorway where she'd spent her final weeks guarding the silk pouch containing hundreds of her children.

White had watched the entire drama unfold. He'd seen her catch flies and wrap them in silk. He'd watched her mate, then kill her partner. He'd witnessed her construct the egg sac with obsessive precision, working even as autumn cold drained her strength. When the first snow came, she was gone.

But her children weren't. Not yet.

White cut down the egg sac and brought it inside. Through the frozen Maine winter, he kept it safe. In spring, the barn filled with tiny spiders—hundreds of them ballooning away on silk threads. Their mother had died. They lived.

The image haunted him. There was something in it—something about sacrifice, about the way death and life weave together—that felt profound. And White, already famous as a New Yorker essayist and author of Stuart Little, couldn't let it go.

How do you explain this to children? How do you tell them that death isn't an ending but part of something larger?

He decided to write it down. But White was meticulous. If he was going to write about a spider, she needed to behave like a real spider. No cartoons. No shortcuts. Real biology or nothing.

So in 1950, one of America's most sophisticated writers showed up at the American Museum of Natural History with a notebook full of spider questions for Willis J. Gertsch—one of the world's leading arachnologists.

Gertsch must have been intrigued. Here was E.B. White, intense and serious, demanding precision about spider anatomy for a children's book.

How do spiders see? When do they hunt? How do they kill prey? What species lives in Maine barns? How do they reproduce? How long do they live?

Gertsch answered everything. Spiders have poor eyesight—they sense vibrations in webs. Most orb weavers hunt at night, rebuilding webs each evening. They inject venom to paralyze insects before wrapping them. The common barn spider in Maine: Araneus cavaticus.

White took detailed notes. When he created Charlotte, he gave her scientific accuracy wrapped in personality. She's nearsighted like a real spider. She hunts at night. She stuns prey with venom. And her full name—Charlotte A. Cavatica—comes directly from the species Gertsch identified.

But the science was just the skeleton. What White built around it changed children's literature forever.

Charlotte's Web, published in 1952, tells the story of Wilbur—a runt pig saved from slaughter by a girl named Fern, then threatened again when sold to her uncle's farm. His life is saved a second time by Charlotte, a barn spider who weaves words into her web: SOME PIG. TERRIFIC. RADIANT. HUMBLE.

The words convince humans that Wilbur is special, worth keeping alive.

Charlotte saves Wilbur. But she cannot save herself.

In the final chapters, Charlotte lays her egg sac at the county fair, knowing death is coming. She says goodbye to Wilbur, admitting she's tired and ready to go. Wilbur begs her to return to the farm. She can't. She dies alone at the fairground, far from home.

Wilbur carries her egg sac back and protects it through winter. In spring, Charlotte's children hatch—hundreds of tiny spiders ballooning away. Three stay behind and become his friends.

But they're not Charlotte. They'll never be Charlotte.

The book ends with Wilbur's tribute: "It is not often that someone comes along who is a true friend and a good writer. Charlotte was both."

Millions of children cried. Millions still do.

Because White did something revolutionary: he wrote a children's book where the hero dies and stays dead. No magic resurrection. No miraculous return. Death is real, final, unavoidable—even for the best of us.

But White also showed that death doesn't erase meaning. Charlotte's children carry on. Her friendship endures in memory. Her sacrifice—spinning webs to save Wilbur even as her strength failed—echoes forever.

This wasn't just a barnyard story. This was White answering the hardest question humans face: What makes a life meaningful?

And he answered with scientific precision. Because accuracy wasn't pedantic—it was essential. If Charlotte behaved like a cartoon instead of a real spider, the emotional truth would collapse. The magic required a foundation of real biology, real farm life, real death.

Charlotte's Web has sold over 45 million copies worldwide. It's translated into dozens of languages. It's consistently ranked among the greatest children's books ever written. White received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1963 and the Laura Ingalls Wilder Medal in 1970.

White died in 1985 at age 86, on his beloved Maine farm—probably not far from where that first spider had spun her web decades before.

But his answer endures. You tell children the truth. You make it beautiful. You show them that even though Charlotte dies, her friendship mattered. Her words mattered. Her sacrifice mattered.

And you get the science right—because if you're going to tell children that death gives life meaning, you owe them a spider who hunts at night, stuns her prey, and builds her web with the precision of Araneus cavaticus.

You owe them Charlotte. Real and mortal and unforgettable.

2026年3月25日 星期三

OED 收 jialat(吃力)kaypoh(鸡婆)Boleh (meaning "can," "may," or "able to".) 。 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: Man on the Run is a 2025 documentary film directed by Morgan Neville[3][4] about the life of Paul McCartney from his formation of Wings through the 1970s.





一些源自福建话的借词也被收录其中,例如jialat(吃力),用来形容困难或麻烦的处境;以及kaypoh(鸡婆),用来指爱管闲事、干涉他人事务的人。


Boleh
 is a Malay and Indonesian word meaning "can," "may," or "able to". It indicates capability, possibility, or permission (being allowed to do something). It is widely used in Malaysia and Singapore to express approval, agreement, or "yes," often in the context of "can do" or "it's allowed".
Key Usage & Nuances:
  • Permission vs. Ability: While often used interchangeably with "can," boleh strictly refers to being permitted or allowed, whereas bisa (in Indonesian) specifically refers to capability/skill, say Indonesian with Lauren on TikTok and a Facebook post.
  • Malay Usage: In Malaysian Malay, boleh covers both "allowed" and "able to".
  • "Boleh Lah": An expression meaning "it's okay," "it's acceptable," or used sarcastically to indicate something is just barely acceptable, say a Reddit post.
  • "Malaysia Boleh": A popular slogan meaning "Malaysia Can" or "Malaysia Can Do It," used to express encouragement and resilience.
  • Interjection: It can be used alone to mean "sure," "can," or "yes".


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Man on the Run
Theatrical release poster
Directed byMorgan Neville
Produced by
  • Morgan Neville
  • Chloe Simmons
  • Meghan Walsh
  • Scott Rodger
  • Ben Chappell
  • Michele Anthony
  • David Blackman
Narrated byPaul McCartney
Edited byAlan Lowe
Production
companies
Distributed by
Release dates
  • 30 August 2025 (TFF)
  • 19 February 2026 (United States and United Kingdom)
  • 27 February 2026 (Prime Video)
Running time
115 minutes[1][a]
Countries
  • United Kingdom
  • United States
LanguageEnglish
Box office$501,000[2]

Man on the Run is a 2025 documentary film directed by Morgan Neville[3][4] about the life of Paul McCartney from his formation of Wings through the 1970s. McCartney is credited as an executive producer.[3]

The film coincides with the 2025 box set Wings, and the book Wings: The Story of a Band on the Run.

Release

The film premiered at the Telluride Film Festival on 30 August 2025.[5] Amazon MGM acquired distribution rights.[3][6]

It had a limited theatrical release by Trafalgar Releasing on 19 February 2026,[7] and was released on Amazon Prime Video on 27 February 2026,[8] when the soundtrack album was also released.[9]

Reception

On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes100% of 62 critics' reviews are positive.[10] Metacritic, which uses a weighted average, assigned the film a score of 78 out of 100, based on 17 critics, indicating "generally favorable" reviews.[11]

In The GuardianPeter Bradshaw gave the film 4/5 stars, writing: "You may find yourself wondering why we are going over this ground again, but it’s an engaging film, and there is always something mesmeric in McCartney’s face: cherubic, and yet sharp and watchful."[12]

In NME, Jordan Bassett also gave 4/5 stars, writing: "The director does an excellent job of capturing the weight of expectations laid at McCartney’s door in April 1970, when he casually revealed that the Beatles were no more. ... At one point, [McCartney] insists he’s not a workaholic but a 'playaholic', which might be the ultimate Macca-ism. In fact, that quip sums up his depiction in Man On The Run: goofy and a little corny, but always endearingly himself."[13]

Chris Willman wrote in Variety: "Man on the Run is a heck of a lot of fun to watch ... Neville’s movie serves as a splendid jukebox, offering rapid-fire clips that bowl you over anew with just how rapidly McCartney’s own synapses were firing on ingenious hit after hit. What it isn’t, though, is revelatory. ... Neville’s film is probably aimed most at the fair-weather oldsters who have fairly cursory memories of McCartney’s 1970s work, and/or the young people who haven’t yet encountered it in the first place, than to hardcore Beatlemaniacs hoping this would be a prime opportunity to open the door and let us (further) in."[14]

In The TimesKevin Maher gave 4/5 stars, writing: "There is so much to love in this guilty-pleasure documentary from Morgan Neville. ... Here, while charting the glorious rise and quiet collapse of Wings, McCartney’s post-Beatles outfit, Neville mostly stands back and allows nearly two hours of deep-dive archive material to do the work. ... In the end there are no revelations, just a warm and cosy restatement of cultural history. Wings were good, the Beatles were better, and the musical world is very lucky indeed to have been enriched by Paul McCartney."[15]

In Rolling Stone (UK), Nick Reilly gave 4/5 stars, writing: "It’s clear that, eventually, Wings were the success that McCartney had always envisaged them being. It may have took some time, as this documentary shows in admirably honest detail. It’s the story of a man on the run from the greatest band of the all time, but eventually heading in the direction of another almighty success. McCartney fans will lap it up."[16]

In Time Out, Phil de Semlyen gave 4/5 stars and wrote: "Piecing together a snappy collage of ’70s home video, unseen archive and gig footage, plus some insightful voiceover interviews, the Piece By Piece and 20 Feet From Stardom director revisits Paul McCartney as he tries to figure out what it is to be an ex-Beatle – and, ideally, how to graduate from it."[17]





----


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:  Man on the Run is a 2025 documentary film directed by Morgan Neville[3][4] about the life of Paul McCartney from his formation of Wings through the 1970s. 

In 2026, Paul McCartney offered one of his most revealing reflections in years through the audio project Man on the Run, released in March. Rather than a conventional interview, it unfolded as something closer to an oral history, built from previously unheard recordings gathered across decades.

What emerged was not a polished narrative, but a personal one.

Among the most striking moments was his recollection of meeting John Lennon for the first time. It was not framed as a legendary encounter, but as something simpler and more human. Two young musicians, both drawn to songwriting, both searching for something they could not yet fully define.

Paul described a feeling that stayed with him from that moment onward, the sense that he had finally found someone who understood the same instinct, the same need to create. It was not just friendship. It was recognition.

That connection would go on to shape everything.

The project also moves into the years after The Beatles, a period often discussed in fragments, but rarely with this level of openness. Paul speaks about isolation without dramatizing it, describing the quiet disorientation that followed the band’s breakup, when the structure that had defined his life suddenly disappeared.

There is no attempt to rewrite that time as something easier than it was.

Instead, he reflects on the slow process of rebuilding, both personally and creatively. The return to music did not arrive as a sudden breakthrough, but as something gradual, shaped by uncertainty, persistence, and the need to find meaning again outside of what had been lost.

What makes Man on the Run stand out is not new information alone, but the tone in which it is shared.

There is less emphasis on legacy, and more on experience. Less distance, more honesty. It feels less like an artist looking back, and more like a person remembering how it felt to live through those moments as they unfolded.

In that sense, the project becomes more than a reflection on music.

It becomes a reflection on connection, loss, and the quiet, ongoing process of beginning again.

剛過世的 Birute Galdikas(立陶宛語:Birutė Marija Filomena Galdikas,1946—2026 「靈長類三傑」之一:so-called Trimates, alongside Dian Fossey and Jane Goodall. ,王道還 等:紅毛猩猩也有文化行為的報告,特別引人注意 )) National Geographic 網站的知名故事

6 hours ago — Biruté Galdikas was the third of the so-called Trimates, alongside Dian Fossey and Jane Goodall. She spent thousands of hours in the jungles ...

so-called Trimates, alongside Dian Fossey and Jane Goodall. 



「靈長類三傑」剛過世的 Birute Galdikas 長年在婆羅洲研究紅毛猩猩,為科學知識跟保育立下典範。我的知識止於王道還介紹這篇,沒想到還在網上:

『紅毛猩猩也有文化行為的報告,特別引人注意,是因為紅毛猩猩是非常孤獨的猩猩。牠們不像黑猩猩或獼猴,群聚在一起生活。成年的雄性,有非常強烈的領域感,只要見到其他雄性出沒,就會上前驅趕。一頭成年雄性的領域中,通常有幾頭雌性生活,可是雌性彼此也不聚在一起。通常,雌性與未成年的孩子相依為命,是紅毛猩猩主要的「社會行為」。

可是,現在學者卻發現,生活在婆羅洲、蘇門答臘六個不同棲息地的紅毛猩猩,各有各的「文化」。例如婆羅洲的一個森林裡,紅毛猩猩在築巢睡覺前,會發出一種特別的聲音,當地幾乎每頭紅毛猩猩都這麼呼叫。而另一座森林裡,紅毛猩猩總是安靜地入睡。

現在學者的課題是,找出這些大猿創制文化的方式:既然紅毛猩猩是極為孤獨的大猿,牠們是怎樣形成「文化」的?』




維基百科,自由的百科全書
碧露蒂·高蒂卡絲
碧露蒂·高蒂卡絲,攝於2011年
出生Birutė Marija Filomena Galdikas
1946年5月10日
同盟國軍事佔領德國威斯巴登
逝世2026年3月24日(79歲)
美國加利福尼亞州洛杉磯
母校加州大學洛杉磯分校
知名於紅毛猩猩的研究與保育
獎項泰勒環境成就獎(1997年)
科學生涯
研究領域靈長類學人類學動物行為學
機構西門菲莎大學
論文Orangutan adaptation at Tanjung Puting Reserve, Central Borneo(1978年)
受影響自路易斯·李奇、 珍·古德黛安·佛西

碧露蒂·瑪麗亞·菲洛梅娜·高蒂卡絲立陶宛語Birutė Marija Filomena Galdikas,1946年5月10日—2026年3月24日),立陶宛加拿大[1]女性人類學家、靈長類學動物學家、保育生物學家暨動物行為學家,也是一位作家,現為加拿大西門菲莎大學教授,曾獲頒加拿大勳章[2],也就是加拿大的最高平民榮譽勳章。高蒂卡絲可說是靈長類學界的紅毛猩猩權威[3],現今已知的紅毛猩猩知識,幾乎都是她的研究成果[4]



2026年3月20日 星期五

前司法院院長許宗力首次對憲訴法爭議表達看法,認為法律設門檻不應導致憲政停擺。

這應該是新聞吧!(不知有沒有媒體記者來?)

報導圖文轉自鄭凱榕 Karen Cheng

許宗力談憲法法庭運作:法律設門檻不應導致憲政停擺

「法律可以設門檻,但不能讓憲法機關因此停擺。」司法院前院長許宗力今(21)日出席「法與國家權力」學術研討會時指出,當現行制度設計可能導致憲法法庭無法運作時,應回歸憲法意志,透過解釋與補充機制,確保憲政體制持續運行。

許宗力在會中發表專題談話,聚焦當前憲法法庭開議人數與制度運作的爭議。他指出,相關問題的理解可從兩個關鍵出發:其一,是大法官釋字第632號所揭示的「憲法機關程序維持原則」;其二,則是「合乎憲法意志的法律解釋與漏洞補充」。

許宗力說明,所謂「憲法機關程序維持原則」,即憲法機關不應因人事更迭或制度運作上的暫時困難,而中斷其憲政功能。這項原則不僅是制度設計的基礎,更是確保國家權力正常運作的重要憲法要求。

他進一步指出,在處理憲法法庭開議與停議問題時,必須依據《憲法訴訟法》進行,但關鍵在於,對該法的解釋與適用,應以憲法意志為指導。所謂憲法意志,不僅包括基本人權保障、自由法治與平等原則,也涵蓋維持憲法機關持續運作的制度性要求。

針對現行法規定大法官開議須達一定人數,許宗力表示,基於法律保留原則及憲法第92條「司法院之組織以法律定之」的規範,立法機關確實有權設定開議門檻,例如以十人作為法定人數。然而,他也直言,若立法時未考慮人事補實可能出現延宕,導致憲法機關無法運作,卻未設置相應的替代機制,便構成法律上的制度漏洞。

「很多國家的憲法訴訟制度,都會預見這種情況,並設計配套規定,但我們目前是缺乏的。」許宗力指出,當制度出現此類漏洞時,大法官在適用法律時,應依據憲法機關存續與運作維持的憲法意志,避免讓憲法法庭陷入癱瘓。

他強調,在此情況下,司法機關不應僅拘泥於形式上的法條適用,而應勇於進行合乎憲法意志的漏洞補充。例如,可在既有制度與現行人數基礎上,調整開議人數的計算方式,以確保憲法法庭能夠持續運作。

不過,許宗力也對不同見解表示理解。他指出,部分大法官傾向嚴格遵循法律明文規定,其出發點在於維護司法誠信與尊重立法機關所設定的制度門檻。

然而,他也提醒,若僅從形式上理解法律,而忽略憲法整體秩序與制度運作的需求,反而可能導致憲法機關停擺,這在憲政層次上,值得進一步檢討與反思。

許宗力並進一步援引德國思想家哈伯瑪斯所提出的「憲政愛國主義」概念指出,現代民主國家的凝聚基礎,不再僅依賴民族、歷史或文化認同,而是建立在對自由、民主等憲法原則與制度的共同承諾之上。

他表示,當社會面臨政治分歧與制度張力時,更應回到對憲法價值的認同與信任,這也是憲政體制得以持續運作的深層基礎。

許宗力最後強調,憲法不僅是權利保障的依據,也是制度運作的基礎。在面對制度困境時,如何在法律安定性與憲政持續性之間取得平衡,是當前憲法實務與學理共同面對的重要課題。

#許宗力

#法與國家權力

2026年3月5日 星期四

沈雲驄剛看完最新出刊的《經濟學人》封面故事,批川普這場戰爭「缺乏戰略」,趕快見好就收吧。

1. 歷史上很少見一個國家的元首,下令去殺害另一個國家元首,但這就是川普跟納坦雅胡做的事。

2. 有些川普支持者說,哈米尼本來就該死,所以對伊朗開戰沒什麼不對。但師出要有名,美國和以色列有責任說清楚:究竟想達成什麼目標? 這不只是道德上的要求,更是務實的考量。因為戰爭目標會指引方向,例如決定國家要自己人民犧牲到什麼程度,也決定了戰鬥應該在什麼時候結束。

3. 其實以色列的目標相對明確,就是要徹底摧毀伊朗。相比之下,川普和他底下的人端出的卻是一堆變來變去的說法——時而談伊朗有飛彈,時而談核武,時而談政權更迭,時而說跟隨以色列的腳步,時而說憑「直覺」認為伊朗即將發動攻擊,時而又說要清算數十年來的宿怨。在戰略上始終無法說清楚「史詩怒火行動」的真正目的,正是這場行動最大的敗筆。

4. 在經濟上,衝擊正在擴大。伊朗試圖封鎖荷姆茲海峽,切斷全球約20%的石油供應。它還攻擊了能源基礎設施,包括全球最大的天然氣液化廠和沙烏地阿拉伯最大的煉油廠。2月27日以來,布蘭特原油價格已上漲14%,來到每桶83美元。歐洲天然氣價格飆升,比上週暴漲超過七成,接下來隨著亞洲買家爭搶貨源,價格可能還會再拉高。如果油價突破每桶100美元,全球GDP成長可能下修0.4個百分點,通膨則可能上升1.2個百分點。

5. 美國想支持庫德族叛軍對伊朗政權施壓,但經濟學人認為這是魯莽的策略,最終可能激起波斯民族主義,甚至引爆內戰。川普或許不在乎,但美國不可能無視這些後果外溢到波斯灣國家、伊拉克、敘利亞和土耳其。

6. 問題是,照大家所認識的川普,如果市場和民調不給他渴望的掌聲,他可能無法接受收手。而目前民調顯示支持打伊朗的美國人不到三分之一(相比之下,2001年入侵阿富汗時支持率高達九成),在這種情況下,川普可能會想把伊朗政權炸到全面崩潰,來取得一場無可爭議的勝利,讓反對者閉嘴。但經濟學人認為,就算以美國的軍事實力,也未必能做到。

7. 目前對伊朗政權來說,只要能活下來就算贏。而伊朗下一任最高領袖可能很快就會產生,顯示伊朗政權非但沒有崩潰,反而引來更多同情,例如這幾天朝四面八方地瘋狂反擊還能獲得某種程度的包容,也預示了川普這場行動在政治目標上正走向失敗。

8. 美國在伊朗需要一套戰略,比較明智的做法是縮小戰略目標:只需削弱伊朗的軍事能力,然後停手。而川普其實已經接近這個目標了。經濟學人向川普喊話:早一點見好就收,總比最後筋疲力竭狼狽退出一場不得民心的戰爭要好得多。

#沈雲驄說財經podcast

2026年3月4日 星期三

你以為在伊朗,但其實是台灣

現在的情況,既複雜又簡單,以色列跟美國多年努力,千方百計,就是要扳倒伊朗的獨裁政府,但這麼多年過去,伊朗窮困潦倒,窮兵黷武,老百姓活不下去多次抗議,但這個神權政權不知道為什麼,就是這麼難倒。

關鍵究竟是什麼?我們不妨把數據全部攤出來,看看問題是出在哪裡?

伊朗的人口有9200萬,卻估計有約1000萬人(10-15%)直接或間接靠神權體制過活,他們不只支持,還會為它拼命,這不是單純的高壓統治,而是「利益綁架 + 意識形態 + 鎮壓」的三重保險。

整個伊朗神權體制的核心包括下面幾股勢力:

伊斯蘭革命衛隊(IRGC),現役有十幾萬人,加上Basij義勇軍、家屬、退役跟附屬企業員工,受益者、靠他吃飯的人破百萬。

然後千萬不要被革命衛隊這個軍隊名字給騙了,IRGC不只拿槍,還掌控了伊朗國內石油、建築、進出口等重大經濟命脈,等於是槍桿子跟錢袋子全都一手抓。

Bonyad宗教基金會,既然是神權政體,所謂的基金會,其實就是財團,而這些只須要向最高領袖負責的巨型財團,僱用的員工數字,達到數十萬到數百萬人,提供工作、補貼、福利,尤其照顧保守基層和貧困的虔誠信徒,形成超大的依賴網絡。

最後再加上神職階層、國企高層、親體制的商人、領補助的家庭……這群人就像一張巨大的蜘蛛網,接收著整個伊朗國家體制的資助,誰敢要去撼動這個體制,就是在威脅他們的飯碗。

所以從2009、2017-2019、2022年這些年一路下來,伊朗歷經多少的超大規模抗議(像馬赫莎·阿米尼事件引爆的「女人、生命、自由」)連這些居然都還撼不動這個其實早就已經搖搖欲墜的政權。

為什麼?因為國家的鎮壓機器強大(革命衛隊),既得利益者有組織、有資源,還願意上街護航,整個社會分裂嚴重,貧富差距極大,既得利益者跟赤手空拳的老百姓分列兩邊,城市的年輕世代跟鄉村保守領福利派,當然也就互相看不順眼。

我相信看到這裡,應該早就一堆人不斷想起,媽呀,啊這不就是台灣嗎?

台灣從威權餘蔭體制下說要搞轉型正義30多年了,黨產爭議、軍公教年金改革、到現在居然借屍還魂還在立法院拉扯,這些既得利益者數百萬人,一旦說要改革,就會動到他們的奶酪。

仔細比較起來,台灣和伊朗跟過去難以完全掙脫的原因還真的超像。

利益捆綁,伊朗是軍經宗教複合體,台灣是黨國遺留的特權系統,從農、漁會,瓦斯、水電到村里辦公室,雖然民眾服務社已經失去功能,但過去的人脈網絡留下九成藍色的基層,地方政府的基層組織、政商結構,就是一張藍色蜘蛛網,只要敢改革,就是斷人財路。

社會分裂,伊朗是宗教保守跟時代進步在拉扯,台灣是分成藍綠在對立,而其中,很顯然那些過去享受過的受益者更容易被動員起來護盤。

舊體制的韌性,這個不是純粹靠嘴巴喊,而是用福利(譬如最近通過的國宅改建)加上意識形態(中華民國頌、夜襲還有你學校的課本)讓人「自願」依附,遇到這種近乎水泥的結構,外部壓力就很難能夠一擊斃命。

所以,要去看九千萬人的伊朗,能不能克服其中一千萬人的阻力,就如同現在的台灣,能不能用年輕世代的努力,去抵銷黨國殘存的威力一樣,台灣的農村選民支持著黑金跟地方派系,伊朗的農村選民也是支持著他們願意給福利的神權世襲,這,真的不是幾顆炸彈就能解決的事情。

改革是一條漫漫長路,改革永遠是場硬仗。