cyberyoung

@China_Amb_India 怎么样，同时被中印两国人一起骂？感觉爽不爽？

The boundary question between China and India is a complex sensitive question left over from history. It concerns the sentiment of our peoples, and requires dialogue and consultation to seek a fair, reasonable and mutually acceptable solution. In recent years, China and India have maintained regular communication on boundary questions through mechanisms such as the Special Representatives (SR) and the Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination on India-China Border Affairs (WMCC). Currently, the border situation is generally stable and peaceful. The two countries should put the boundary question at an appropriate position in bilateral relations, not allow the boundary question to define the overall China-India relations, still less let specific differences affect bilateral cooperation.

@peterXarsenal @VanberghenEU 第一，她说了，西安的一个普通车站；第二，中国火车的车厢之间是通的

@VanberghenEU You are in 1st class compartment. Feel the real state of China by seating in an ordinary compartment

China, in Xi’an, at a railway station so ordinary that nobody would ever think to write about it, a ticket clerk paused for a moment and told me: “Be careful, the water is hot.” I showed my passport many times. And honestly, I preferred that inconvenience to the alternative of never showing a passport but constantly looking over my shoulder in the street. Grand speeches about freedom mean little if people do not feel safe in their daily lives. I love Europe far too much to pretend that everything is fine. We spend endless hours debating the future, drafting strategies, and discussing values, while too often neglecting the simple things that make a society work: attention, responsibility, order, and basic civic trust. Europe needs to regain its sense of direction. It really does.

@ReportBeijing @xinwendiaocha 你这个言论，就像跪台办一样，各种惠台，利益究竟去了哪里，台湾的普通人普通农民有受惠？那些受惠了的台南农民又认为应该感谢谁？说回菲律宾，我们有能力，将管理插入菲律宾，甚至菲律宾的基层吗？如果真的如你所说，马那一派不会跳着将这些公布，对他有利啊。你说的都是大家都知道的大路货

@cyberyoung @xinwendiaocha 化肥给的是杜特尔特家族，现在菲律宾是门阀政治，有亲美的，有亲华的

在香格里拉安全峰会上，菲律宾高官对中国大发雷霆。 特奥多罗国防部长，一口驳斥中国对日批评。 “把过去的战争拿出来把日本塑造成坏人，是为了掩盖自身在南海行动的烟幕弹”，他如此批评。 “这是不公平且不诚实的宣传”，他断言，并捍卫了与日本的安全保障合作。

@zmx8067 科技产业的命脉，受到世界的制裁，吓死了，吓死了

今天上午，🇨🇳東沙群島海域，台灣省海巡署巡護9號小艇妄圖攔截中國海警的萬噸巨艦。 日本和菲律賓的劃界都快劃到台東海灘上了，海巡署怎麼不敢去比劃兩下？🤣

@showme_asap @kynkyn73670170 你们不认，我们当然可以。何况，你们先查查自己的屁股，去google一下“闽平渔事件”

原来中国海警这么霸气👍👍👍

@BruceWa69879898 @jxzdmzw 还是不敢正面回答，一切都是老共的锅。你们是独立国家，也支棱点啊，日菲这么欺负你们，你们都不出声吗？整天就知道对着老共出声？原来真正怂的是你们啊，你们都一点不为台湾渔民考虑考虑？

@cyberyoung @jxzdmzw 一切的源頭，不就是共匪認為台灣是中國的一省？ 你盡往別的方向去說，啥論點都一樣啦！ 我的回覆很簡單： 台灣就是台灣，不屬於中國，歡迎來觀光，也歡迎打過來。 掰扯一堆彼此互不認同的想法，浪費時間啦！

同感同感。如果他们仅仅是拒绝统一、谋求独立，但他们的表现像个有尊严的人，至少我会反对武统。 什么是有尊严的人呢？这么说吧，面对美国延迟军武交货期和喊停新一轮军售，面对日菲的霸凌划界，你得摆出义正词严的抗议姿态，表现出你“国”虽小，尊严不容践踏。 如果台湾人有这样的骨气，我敬他们是条汉子，我会主张能和统就和统，不能和统就算了。 但他们的表现是，“无论谁虐我，我骂大陆”。贱成这个样子，我是无论如何无法共情。

@BruceWa69879898 @jxzdmzw 你这么回答，只能说明你缺乏基本的逻辑。你是回复人家，不是开新话题。结果你正面回复了吗？

@cyberyoung @jxzdmzw .......... 這隻粉蛆哪來的新話題？ 我點破這個 “共匪孬種不敢打”，簡潔有力的事實，哪裡虛了？

@BruceWa69879898 @jxzdmzw 另外呢，人家说了个观点，你不能正面回应，只能抛出个新话题回怼，只能说明你自己虚了

@jxzdmzw 你用力支持武統又有個毛用？ 共匪孬種不敢打呀！

@BruceWa69879898 @jxzdmzw 那就独嘛，反正共匪孬种。怎么又中华民国就是台独了，和以前说得不一样嘛，和党纲说法也不一样

@IamFlorbela @jxzdmzw 只会喊口号，戴帽子，一点逻辑讲不出来

@jxzdmzw CCP教育出來的粉蛆，缺少最基本的人性。

@Real_Baomi @JinRyangKR 好。我来问你，为何台湾的防空识别区，西边划到了江西，东边连日本的边都不敢碰？不是有重叠吗？怎么东北不去重叠了？

@JinRyangKR 經濟海域本來就會有重疊，你是不是低能

如下图所示，台湾经济海域，彻底被瓜分了…… 川普说台湾是小偷，民进党不敢放屁…… 俄罗斯说台湾狗吠，民进党装听不见…… 日本把钓鱼岛变成尖阁诸岛，忍了！ 德国与捷克拒绝开放领空，忍了！ 如今连菲律宾也跟着踩一脚，民进党也忍了😳

@bingzhou740208 @tankman2002 伟光正的民进党

@tankman2002 这是国共内战的结果，不是民进党造成的

民进党仇中卖台已经到了匪夷所思的地步。日本和菲律宾私分台海以东专属经济区，这是和台湾利益息息相关的权益，民进党默不作声甚至暗自鼓励，大陆海警出面阻止日菲图谋，民进党反而跳出来呛大陆多管闲事。 不管和大陆的意识形态之争如何，领土领海是不能随意放弃的，属于中华人民共和国也好，属于中华民国也好，不要送给外人就好。民进党为了反中，不顾民族大义，主动向日本和菲律宾出卖子孙后代的未来，以换取潜在的台独支持。这跟当年伪满洲国勾结日本甘当傀儡有什么本质区别呢？孤岛石敬瑭，卖国何太急？

@haitun6459861 @AndyBxxx Interestingly, Chinese renminbi notes feature not only Chinese characters but also four minority scripts, including Uyghur. In Japan, how many people still use the Ainu script?

@AndyBxxx This appears to be an announcement from Chinese authorities warning Uyghur passengers about prohibited activities and other issues. The warning is in Uyghur so that Uyghurs can understand it... thanks for going to the trouble, you scumbag!💀

🚨I'm flying from Xinjiang to Gansu now. Listen to the announcement in the Uygur language. And remember this next time the Western conspiracy theory mill tells you Uygur people are forbidden from using their language.

@haitun6459861 @AndyBxxx First, everyone is like this, not just Uyghurs; second, are these actions all legal in your country?

@RonaldSimmonsUS @m0d8ye 你可能忘了，这一次，是openAI和Anthropic一开始就封禁了中国。btw，你一再说什么“中共国”，只能体现你的执念和执拗

@m0d8ye 你好像没弄清楚中共国的大模型公司出现的原因。 中共国之所以有独立的大模型公司，根本原因是CCP有自己的“维稳”需求（必须严格控制国民的意识形态），因此必须在美国的公司之外“另起炉灶”。 x.com/m0d8ye/status/…

一直好奇这一轮 AI 泡沫中为什么没有印度大模型公司出现。过往我接触下来，印度工程师在数理上的能力并不比大陆人弱的。

@goodhunt @TheBlackWallaby emm. vpn is more important😂

@TheBlackWallaby Yes!!

I’m actually flying to HK and Guangzhou tomorrow My only international travel before this is to…..Cancun Any tips for a first time trip?

@PearceChen42 @kong_ls @whiteTony99 6. DeepSeek从开始到现在，发表了很多的论文和文章，甚至有美国的YouTube主用它的论文引导，自己以Qwen为底座，训练出了自己的模型。具体事例你可以自行google 7. 相对于DeepSeek晦涩难懂的论文，openAI和Anthropic的这类指控更为普通人喜闻乐见，因为不用动脑子，看得懂，情绪化投入就可以

@kong_ls @whiteTony99 x.com/i/grok/share/c… Hope you can explain these things

得不到，就拼命抹黑。 美国国务院已下令，对DeepSeek等中国公司发出"全球警告"，指控"盗窃AI技术"。 你也许不知道，三年来，美国高达23次，邀请DeepSeek梁文峰赴美，均被拒。着弯别国来请，照样拒。 一边疯狂邀请，一边全球抹黑。这操作，不是学术交流，是"先诱后剿"。2015年张浩一下飞机就被抓，2026年4月20位学者被全员遣返，血淋淋的教训摆在那里。

@PearceChen42 @kong_ls @whiteTony99 1. 人间说的是靠蒸馏能蒸馏出万亿参数的大模型？ 2. 你这里给出的是openAI认为DeepSeek违反了它的用户协议，记着，是违反了用户协议 3. 这是openAI的单方面宣称 4. 蒸馏是一个没有褒贬的行为，学术圈还有专门的研究 5. DeepSeek是一个开源项目，不仅权重而且代码

how did we make deepseek outperform opus 4.7? i've been thinking about why "open model bad at tool calling" is almost always a harness problem, not a model problem. context: spent the two days looking at billions of tokens in @CommandCodeAI (tb open source ai cli) using deepseek. I ended up writing a tool-input repair layer. the trigger was watching deepseek-flash fail on the simplest /review run, every shellCommand and readFile call bouncing back with a raw zod issues blob, the model unable to recover because the error wasn't in a form it could read. by the end deepseek v4 pro was beating opus 4.7 6/10 times on our internal evals. a few things i learned that feel general: 1/ the failure modes aren't random they're a small finite compositional set. across deepseek-flash, deepseek v4 pro, glm, qwen, the same four mistakes repeat almost exactly: - sending `null` for an optional field instead of omitting it - emitting `["a","b"]` as a json *string* instead of an actual array - wrapping a single arg in `{}` where the schema expected an array (an "empty placeholder") - passing a bare string where an array was expected (`"foo"` instead of `["foo"]`) four repairs, ~30-100 lines each, ordered carefully (json-array-parse must run before bare-string-wrap or `'["a","b"]'` becomes `['["a","b"]']`). that is the whole catalogue. when i hear "this open source model can't do tool calls" i now assume one of those four, and so far that's been right ~90% of the time. 2/ the funniest failure mode is also the most revealing. deepseek-flash, when asked to edit or write a file, sometimes emits the path as a *markdown auto-link*: filePath: "/Users/x/proj/[notes.md](http://notes. md)" our writeFile tool obediently trued creating files literally named `[notes.md](http://notes .md)` until we caught it. this is not a hallucination. it's the post-training chat distribution leaking through the tool boundary the model has been rewarded for auto-linking in conversational output, and is applying that prior in a context where it makes no sense. the fix is two regex lines that unwrap only the degenerate case where link text equals url-without-protocol real markdown like `[click](https://x .com)` passes through untouched. this is also conditioning of their own tools during RL which were different from all other tools we write and ofc can't predict. "tool confusion" is a more useful frame than "capability gap." the model knows how to format a path. it just hasn't been told clearly enough that this path is going to fopen, not into a chat bubble. so we encode that hint at the schema level `pathString()` instead of `z.string()` and the leak is plugged for every path field at once. 3/ the design choice that mattered was inverting preprocess-then-validate to validate-then-repair. my first attempt was the obvious one: a preprocessing pass that normalized inputs (strip nulls, parse stringified arrays, etc.) before zod ever saw them. it broke immediately, writeFile content that *happened* to be json-shaped got rewritten before it hit disk. silent corruption, easy to miss in a smoke test. then i made it less greedy - parse the input as-is. if it succeeds, ship it. valid inputs are never touched. - on failure, walk the validator's own issue list. for each issue path, try the four repairs in order until one applies. - parse again. on success, log `tool_input_repaired:${toolName}`. on failure, log `tool_input_invalid:${toolName}` and return a model-readable retry message. the structural insight here is: when you preprocess, you encode a prior about what's broken. when you let the validator complain first, the schema is the prior, and you only spend repair budget at the exact paths the schema actually disagreed at. the validator is doing the work of localizing the bug for you. it's the same shape as cheap-then-careful everywhere else try the fast path, fall back on evidence. (this also gives you per-tool telemetry for free. you can watch repair rates per (model, tool) and notice when a model regresses on a specific contract before users do.) 4/ shape invariants and relational invariants need different fixes. the four repairs above all handle shape problems wrong type, missing key, wrong container. but read_file had a *relational* invariant: "if you provide offset, you must also provide limit, and vice versa." deepseek kept calling `readFile({ absolutePath, limit: 30 })` and getting an `ERROR:` back. you can't fix this with input repair, because each field is independently valid the bug is in the relationship between them. so i taught the function the model's intent instead. `limit` alone → `offset = 0`. `offset` alone → `limit = 2000` (matches common read tool ops default). then surfaced the decision back to the model in the result: "Note: limit was not provided; defaulted to 2000 lines. To read more or fewer lines, retry with both offset and limit." no `Error:` prefix, so the tui doesn't paint it red. the model sees what we picked and can self-correct on the next turn if our guess was wrong. transparency over silent magic wins big. repair where you can. extend semantics where you can't. surface the choice either way. zoom out: a lot of what looks like model capability is actually contract design. a strict schema is a choice with a cost it filters out noise, but it also filters out recoverable noise from any model that hasn't memorized the exact json contract you happened to pick. the largest commercial models eat that cost invisibly and are linient on tool calling because they've seen enough of every contract during pretraining; open models pay it loudly and get dismissed for it. the harness is where you mediate between distributions. four small repairs (i'm sure more to follow as we have three more merging today), two regex lines for auto-links, one relational default, one prefix change. the model didn't change. the contract got more forgiving in exactly the places it needed to be. deepseek v4 pro now beats opus 4.7 6/10 times on our internal evals. imo "skill issue" applies to the harness more often than the model.