精华内容
下载资源
问答
  • 这就使问题变得更加棘手,但实际上这也有可能转变成一大优势。在Bitbucket和Bitbucket Cloud中,我们实际上会提交冲突标记作为merge commit D的组成要素,然后在变更对比结果中标出这标记,以说明你的pullrequest...

    如果你正在使用Git,那你很有可能也在使用pull request。在分布式版本控制系统(DVCS)诞生之初,pull request就已经以某种形式出现了。在Bitbucket 和GitHub 等流行的 web 服务诞生之前,一个pull request可能只是一封来自Alice请你从她的代码库中拉取一些变更集的电邮。如果你觉得她的主意不错,你可以运行一些指令把这些变更拉取到你的master分支。

    $ git remote add alice git://bitbucket.org/alice/bleak.git
    $ git checkout master
    $ git pull alice master

    当然,随便的地拉取Alice的变更到master并不是个好主意。master代表你要交付给客户的代码,所以你通常会留心合并进来的变更。与其拉取进master,不如把变更集先拉取进一个独立的分支,检查变更之后再合并的模式更好一些:

    $ git fetch alice
    $ git diff master...alice/master

    使用git diff 的"三点式"命令会显示出alice/master的最新提交与从你本地master中调用的脚本(或共同节点)之间的变化,实际上这就是Alice想让我们拉取的所有变更集。

    乍一看,这似乎是一种审阅 pull request 中变化的合理的方法。事实上,在撰写本文时,大部分git托管服务都是用这种三点式方法来运行pull request的diff算法。

    然而使用这种 “三点式” 的变更对比算法来给 pull request 生成比对结果会有一些问题。在真正的项目中,master 分支会严重的偏离(diverge)功能分支(feature branch)。因为,其他的开发者会在他们自己的分支上工作,然后合并他们的代码到master。一旦master向前发展了,在功能分支上运行简单的git diff就不能反映两个分支之间的真正变化了。你只能看到当前功能分支与master分支的一个较老的版本间的变化。

    “三点式”的git diffmaster...alice/master命令不会考虑到master的变化


    在pull request diff看不到这些变更有可能带来什么后果呢?有两个。

    合并冲突

    第一个问题可能你会经常遇到:合并冲突。如果你在你的功能分支上修改了一个文件,而且文件恰好也在master上被修改了,git diff 依旧会显示你的功能分支上的修改。而 git merge 在另一方面则会显示出错误,并且把冲突提示 (conflict marker) 在你的工作副本中弄的到处都是,提示你,你的分支有不可调和的差别。或者,至少这些差别让 Git 复杂的合并策略也无能为力。

    没有人“喜欢”化解合并冲突,但这是任何版本控制系统都无法避免的。至少,在不支持在文件层次上给文件上锁的版本控制系统,而给文件上锁本身也有其自身的问题。

    但是,比起使用“三点式”的git diff来调用pull request比对结果带来的另外一个问题来说,合并冲突要好多了。这另外一个问题就是本可以顺利合并却把微妙的错误偷偷引入你的代码库中的特别的逻辑冲突

    干净合并的逻辑冲突

    如果开发人员在不同的分支上修改同一个文件的不同部分,你也许会有麻烦。在某些情况下,各自可以正常运行的不同的变更貌似可以无冲突顺利地合并,但实际上在合并后却会引起逻辑错误。

    在几种情况下会产生这样的逻辑冲突,但常见的是当两个或更多的开发人员偶然发现并在不同的分支上修复了同一个错误。让我们看看以下计算票价的javascript的例子:

    // flat fees and taxes
    var customsFee          = 5.5;
    var immigrationFee      = 7;
    var federalTransportTax = .025;
    
    function calculateAirfare(baseFare) {
        var fare = baseFare;                
        fare += immigrationFee;
        fare *= (1 + federalTransportTax);
        return fare;
    }

    这里很明显有一个错误:原作者在计算中漏了加入关税。

    现在让我们设想两个程序员Alice和Bob,两人分别发现了这个错误,并且各自在两个不同的分支上修复了这个错误。

    Alice在入境费前加上关税:


    function calculateAirfare(baseFare) {
        var fare = baseFare;                
    +++ fare += customsFee; // Fixed it! Phew. Glad we didn't ship that! - Alice
        fare += immigrationFee;
        fare *= (1 + federalTransportTax);
        return fare;
    }

    而Bob的修复也很类似,只是他在入境费之后的那一行加上关税:

    function calculateAirfare(baseFare) {
        var fare = baseFare;                
        fare += immigrationFee;
    +++ fare += customsFee; // Fixed it! Gee, lucky I caught that one. - Bob
        fare *= (1 + federalTransportTax);
        return fare;
    }

    由于每个分支上修改的代码是在不同的代码行,所以这两个分支可以前后分别干净地合并到master。但是,master就有了*这两行代码*,从而造成了对客户收取双重关税的严重错误。

    function calculateAirfare(baseFare) {
        var fare = baseFare;                
        fare += customsFee; // Fixed it! Phew. Glad we didn't ship that! - Alice
        fare += immigrationFee;
        fare += customsFee; // Fixed it! Gee, lucky I caught that one. - Bob
        fare *= (1 + federalTransportTax);
        return fare;
    }

    (这个例子显然是刻意编出来的,但重复代码或逻辑确实会造成相当严重的后果:[gotofail](https://www.imperialviolet.org/2014/02/22/applebug.html)。大家有没有遇到过类似的错误?

    假设你已经先把Alice的pull request合并进入了master,以下就是Bob的pull request使用“三点式”git diff计算从分支顶点到合并基准的代码变化所生成的比对结果。

    function calculateAirfare(baseFare) {
        var fare = baseFare;                
        fare += immigrationFee;
    +++ fare += customsFee; // Fixed it! Gee, lucky I caught that one. - Bob
        fare *= (1 + federalTransportTax);
        return fare;
    }

    因为你看到的对比结果是基于源代码的评估,所以根本没有警告一旦你按了合并按钮将会导致什么样的严重后果。

    你真正想从pull request看到的是:如果把Bob的分支合并进来,master将会有什么变化。

    function calculateAirfare(baseFare) {
        var fare = baseFare;                
        fare += customsFee; // Fixed it! Phew. Glad we didn't ship that! - Alice
        fare += immigrationFee;
    +++ fare += customsFee; // Fixed it! Gee, lucky I caught that one. - Bob
        fare *= (1 + federalTransportTax);
        return fare;
    }

    这个变更对比清楚地说明了问题所在。一个pull request的查看器可以识别代码重复行(希望如此)并让Bob清楚的了解到哪些代码需要重新调整,从而防止重大漏洞危及master,最终影响输出。

    这就是我们决定在Bitbucket和BitbucketCloud中的pullrequest能够完美实现变更对比功能。在Bitbucket中,当您查看一个pullrequest时,你所看到的正是生成的合并提交的实际预览。我们实现这一点的机理是在后台实际创建一个合并提交的分支,并向你展示该合并提交与目标分支的区别。

    Git diff C和D(D表示merge commit)展示了两分支的所有区别(图片注释)。

    为满足你的好奇心,我将同一代码库推送(push)到若干不同的主机服务器上,这样你就能看到各种有效的diff算法。

    Bitbucket和Bitbucket Cloud中所用的“merge commit”变更对比功能显示了合并时将作出的实际变更。难题在于实施起来较为棘手,且成本高昂。

    移动目标

    首要问题在于merge commit D实际上并不存在,而创建mergecommit的代价较高。第二个问题是,单单创建D并不能治本。Mergecommit的父对象B和C随时都可能改变。我们改变其中一个父对象,重新设定pull request的作用域,因为这样能有效调整pull request合并时使用的变更对比算法。如果您的pull request的目标分支是十分重要的高负荷分支,则您的pull request很可能会频繁改变作用域。


    任何一条分支改变时,都会创建merge commit。

    实际上,每当有人将分支推送或合并至master或特征分支中时,Bitbucket或Bitbucket Cloud可能需要对新的合并操作进行计算,以显示准确的变更对比结果。


    处理合并冲突

    通过合并生成pull request 变更对比会产生另一个问题,即,时常会引发合并冲突。因为这种情况下,你的git服务器以非交互方式运行,但却没人来解决这个问题。这就使问题变得更加棘手,但实际上这也有可能转变成一大优势。在Bitbucket和Bitbucket Cloud中,我们实际上会提交冲突标记作为merge commit D的组成要素,然后在变更对比结果中标出这标记,以说明你的pullrequest如何发生冲突。

    在 Bitbucket 和 Bitbucket Cloud 的变更记录中:绿色代表增加,红色代表删除,黄色表示代码冲突

    这意味着我们不仅能提前监测到 pull request 冲突,而且同时能让审查者讨论冲突应该怎样解决。 冲突永远都会涉及到至少两方面的开发者,所以我们觉得 pull request 是研究合理解决方案的最好的地方。

    抛开额外的复杂度和成本不谈,我相信我们在 Bitbucket Cloud 和 Bitbucket 中采用的方式提供了最准确和有用的 pull request 变更对比。如果你有其它问题或是反馈,请在文章下面留言。如果你喜欢,你可以加我 ([@kannonboy] 。我会时常发一些 Git,Bitbucket 的更新和其它的干货。


    CSDN开发服务为企业提供ALM(应用全生命周期管理)解决方案,致力于打造基于研发管理前沿、开放的工具产品集群(如Atlassian、Sonar、Jenkins等),结合CSDN CODE等研发工具的高效率、高质量和高可靠性企业级研发管理平台,为企业软件开发生命周期内各阶段、各部门、各角色提供全流程、全方位的跟踪和综合管理。截止目前,CSDN ALM解决方案已服务于包括华为、中国移动通信研究院、嘀嘀打车、广联达、招商银行、南粤银行等在内的数百家行业企业及互联网企业。



    展开全文
  • 现在,在国内使用Delphi的人数总体很少,但我相信这样一个好的工具应该让更多的人知道,大家去了解这个工具,并从中获得工作效率的提升。我希望能通过一点微薄的力量去鼓励继续坚持用着Delphi的朋友,同时去吸引...
  • 闲谈IPv6-IPv4的TCP和NAT互联网变得畸形

    千次阅读 多人点赞 2019-04-04 22:30:47
    NAT和TCP合力互联网变得中心化,不对等。 NAT和TCP违背了互联网的设计初衷。 有破要有立,IPv6将会带来什么? 如果彻底地扫除了NAT,如果5G/6G让更多的东西接入了互联网,那么什么才是正确的? 无疑,...

    下班的路上读了一篇比较有意思的百家号文章:
    IPV6和5G来到后,我们会体验到《镜花缘》里的景象嘛?: https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1590883265841566472

    这篇文章可以引起一些思考。文章很短,两分钟可以看完,我并不就着这篇短文做评论,而是想说,为什么这些在IPv4时代不可能发展起来。

    我将其归咎于NAT!NAT是IPv4的遗毒!

    NAT已经成了IPv4时代的一种与生俱来的性质,所以,一旦在IPv6时代丢了它,很多人非常不适应。很多人会觉得丢了一个宝贝。

    我们总是会为丢失已经拥有的糟粕而感到惋惜,而不会觉得还没有得到但是将要得到的东西才是希望。这就是人的惰性,得到和失去并不对等,过去和未来并不等价。如果能不失去,那么人们宁可不得到。

    没有了NAT后,人们会失去已经拥有的 躲在NAT后的感觉,而不会关心取消NAT后将会得到什么,毕竟UDP也好,P2P也罢,都没能得到过大规模部署。但现在是时候拥抱这些了,可人们依然不想要。人们想要TCP持续下去,因为人们早就习惯它了。

    不是IPv4助长了TCP,而是IPv4的问题带来了NAT,而NAT阻滞了P2P(严格来讲,P2P并不是一种4层协议,但是按照编程模型来讲,它是比UDP更加激进的对等互联协议!),UDP等其它协议,让我们认为TCP的C/S编程模型是理所当然的。

    是NAT的TCP友好性阻滞了其它非TCP协议,才让我们认为TCP是理所当然的,反过来,TCP的爆发也让人们觉得NAT是理所当然的。

    别说万物互联了,就是因为NAT,让你无法在高铁上接入自己家的空调,你会觉得这不重要,因为你想象不到当人们觉得它重要时世界会变成什么样子。

    如果NAT是理所当然的,那么它绝对是万物互联的障碍,而IPv6正是它的掘墓人!

    IPv6带来了改变,它取消了NAT(你依然可以让IPv6做NAT,就像马依然可以跑在公路上那样不合时宜),IPv6解放了5G所需的资源,这就是二者的关系。


    当真的实现万物联网时,人与人,物与物,人与物之间,正如《镜花缘》里那般,便不会有谎言了。问题是如何实现万物联网,需要什么样的基础设施来支撑万物联网。答案是一个列表,这个列表中当然包括IPv6和5G:

    • 庞大的地址空间支持海量的接入点;
    • 点对点对等互联使得任意节点在任意时间均可以收发数据;
    • 低功耗,移动性支持;
    • 高带宽,低时延…

    这些宣传都听腻了的…

    现在的问题是,IPv6对IPv4到底是一次简单对升级,还是说一次前所未有的颠覆?我认为是颠覆。

    一切源自于IPv4的NAT。让我们从头说起。


    IPv4的初衷是构建一个 分布式的(意味着无中心)点对点的(意味着无偏见)逐跳的(意味着无逻辑连接)分组交换的(意味着无物理连接) 网络,这样它便可以构建一个无中心的体系,方可承受冷战对手的任意精确打击。

    然而,最终这张网进化成了我们现如今的互联网Internet。当初构建IPv4时,可能压根就没有想着每一个普通人都会拥有一个IPv4地址,如果仅仅用于军事目的或者一些国家战略级的目的,那么IPv4地址是足足的。

    为了在无物理连接,无逻辑连接的尽力而为的网络上实现 有连接 的语义,必须在IP层之上实现,且这种实现 不能是逐跳的,必须是端到端的。

    事实上,TCP只是IP可以承载的传输协议之一,并不是全部,TCP只是加强了IP,UDP才是复制了IP。

    但是TCP除了连接性,还有一个更加有益的性质,这就是 流式传输! 这才是让其压倒UDP的那把宝剑。流式传输相比数据报传输要方便得多,它可以自适应当时比较小的带宽,主机发送,接收缓存,自带的滑动窗口可以轻松搞定这些事情,如果是数据报协议,就会面临 如果放不下,就只能丢掉 的尴尬,因为数据报不能切割!

    不是连接,不是重传,不是保序让TCP在初期胜过了UDP,而是流式传输!连接,重传,保序只是辅助。

    随着信息技术的发展,当初必须使用TCP的理由不存在了,流式不必基于字节而可以基于报文了,这样看来使用UDP会更加灵活,但是这个时候,推广UDP却受到了一种阻碍,从而又一次让TCP更加蓬勃起来。

    这个阻力就是NAT!NAT对其它协议太不友好,因为它的方向性!然而,NAT同时也阻滞着TCP的反向连接,但是人们貌似并不care,于是发明出了uPnP,打洞这些垃圾技术,就是为了支持TCP的反向向内的连接。遗憾的是,这时,人们已经接受了TCP,各大网站,服务器均已经全面部署了TCP,别的协议就彻底没戏了。


    人们常说互联网是一个资源共享的平台,我说不!

    互联网是一个资源垄断在几个巨头的金字塔等级世界,完全不对等!这背后的原因就是大规模部署TCP,而TCP的卫道者就是NAT!

    我们看看几十年前的TCP编程模型,非常清晰的一个资源垄断编程模型,我们称之为 C/S模型 ,一个例子就是,Apache服务器专门设计了几种MPM(Multi-Processing Module),来支持这种 C/S模型

    这预示着服务器往往是强大的,而客户端往往只是展示一下结果而已。服务器越来越强大,客户机越来越瘦,这是这种C/S模型发展的必然趋势!这种模型最终发展到了我们现在的所谓 云计算。服务器越来越强大,强大到可以用一朵云来表示了,因为没有任何人可以刻画这朵云里面的细节!

    非常具有讽刺意义的是,云计算,一切在云端,这恰恰就是现如今我们自嗨的互联网Internet的唯一形式,人们纷纷扑向云计算,人们以为这将是互联网世界的最后一块蛋糕。但是…

    但这是不正确的,这不是真正的互联网应该呈现的样子,这不是真正的万物对等互联。

    IPv6/IPv8,5G/6G的出现可能会彻底推翻这种模型!


    由于NAT的存在以及TCP的局限,互联网变成了一个纯粹的 被动式的拉(pull)网 ,很少有 主动推(push) 的动作。

    拉模型是一个典型的我们熟悉的Request/Response模型,我们目前熟知的HTTP协议就是这种模型,这意味着每次请求到资源,至少要经过两个RTT的时延。TCP需要握手,然后还要发一个Request报文,接下来才是Response。TCP意识到这样做是一种错误,于是FastOpen这个trick就出来了…

    为何迟迟没有符合推模型的的App呢?因为在NAT和TCP的环境里根本就做不到!

    首先,推模型需要知道目标地址,在IPv4网络中,这意味着NAT会成为障碍,此外,小型设备支撑不住太大的能耗,因此不适合做TCP的侦听端,此外,小型设备不适合处理MPM。这难道不是进一步助长将C和S超两个极端分化吗?


    看看我们当前的TCP/IP网络的上层已经发达到了什么程度,随便一个消息系统都可以吊打TCP/IP网络上现有的传输协议模型:

    • 点对点模型。IPv4的初衷,但是NAT使得其只实现了一个方向,助长了两极分化。
    • 订阅/发布模型。IP协议的组播增强,但是组播和NAT一起面临着更多的现实问题。

    只要打通了底层网络,世界任意两点或者多点的消息系统将可以任意 或推或拉 数据,传输本身将极大丰富。

    但恰恰IP层本身却不支持推拉双向传输。这都怪NAT,而NAT本来只是解决IPv4地址不够用的一个Trick。

    好了,让我来总结一下我上面都说了些什么:

    1. TCP是一种C/S模型的端到端协议。
    2. NAT让TCP的S端趋向于越来越强大,C端越来越瘦。
    3. NAT和TCP合力让互联网变得中心化,不对等。
    4. NAT和TCP违背了互联网的设计初衷。

    有破要有立,IPv6将会带来什么?

    如果彻底地扫除了NAT,如果5G/6G让更多的东西接入了互联网,那么什么才是正确的?

    无疑,计算能力将变得分布化而不是越来越集中。在商业巨头内部,他们早就意识到了廉价的分布计算能力要远远强于昂贵的集中式计算,看看无论是谷歌,Facebook,还是阿里巴巴,腾讯,都不再采购专业昂贵的的设备,而是采购超级廉价的简易设备来自研软件,这种趋势将扩展到整个互联网!

    集中进行云计算的那几朵云终将烟消云散!!

    区块链技术只是一个想法,但是去中心化则是必然!无论采用哪种技术实现去中心化并不重要,重要的是把云驱散,互联网才能真正对等互联互通。

    现在的互联网不是阿帕网最初希望成为的那个抗核打击的分布式去中心的互联网,现在的互联网更像是上世纪60年代登录大型机终端进行作业操作的 远程多用户登录终端系统! ,一群人拿着手机,Pad 登录云端 做各种有意义或者无聊的事情…


    让我们来看另一些概念,即 分组交换,存储转发,统计复用! 是的,这些就是我们的互联网的根基中的根基,IP协议可以改变,这三点性质不可撼动。

    基于这些,我们能把互联网实现成什么样子?那肯定不是现在这个鸟样子。

    去年的时候,做过一段时间Kafka,我对Kafka的设计理念是非常喜欢的。它真的是 集存储和转发为一身! 而我们知道,存储和转发分别代表数据库和网络,它们在某些方面是矛盾的:

    • 数据库: 存储数据,数据的终点,越持久化存储越好。
    • 网络: 转发数据,数据的经由路径,需要尽快离开,一方面为了尽快到达目的地,另一方面尽快离开可以出让资源。

    但是Kafka巧妙地将二者融合在了一起,以数据存储,哈希,发布订阅实现了储存转发和统计复用以及负载均衡。具体可以参见我去年的总结:
    初试kafka后的一点感性的想法: https://blog.csdn.net/dog250/article/details/79512708
    Kafka设计思想的脉络整理: https://blog.csdn.net/dog250/article/details/79588437

    TCP/IP网络也要吸取其中的一些精华了。

    所以说不要总被TCP和NAT限制住。动不动就说TCP好,说NAT好的是需要看看新的东西了,拿新东西没有的和老旧东西拥有的比,任何新东西都会被扼杀:

    • IPv6地址太长根本记不住,推广不起来!
    • 没有NAT不安全,时刻可能被攻击!
    • QUIC性能太差,且不稳定,进程总是crash!
    • 可穿戴设备能耗问题太多!
    • 无人驾驶车必须保留驾驶位!
    • 电子墨水书不能折角,不便批注!
    • 我是明朝人,我宁可不留头也要留发!
    • 我是那个明朝人的后代,我是清朝人,我死也不会剪掉辫子,太难看了!

    最后,如果觉得这一切都太难,那么好吧,IPv4继续留给人用来在NAT后发起TCP连接自嗨吧,我早就觉得,IPv4和IPv6将长时间共存,IPv4作为一个局域网继续留给人用,IPv6将构建真正的互联网!二者通过NAT64来接口,也挺好!


    浙江温州皮鞋湿,下雨进水不会胖!

    展开全文
  • 谷歌是否我们变得愚蠢?

    万次阅读 2014-01-21 16:32:22
    卡尔在2008年7-8月号的《大西洋月刊》撰文,以《谷歌是否我们变得愚蠢》为题,痛苦地剖析了自己和互联网一代的大脑退化历程。   The Atlantic Monthly 《大西洋月刊》 JULY/AUGUST 2008 2008年7/8月号 What...

    http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_537d1eea0100cppy.html

    卡尔在2008年7-8月号的《大西洋月刊》撰文,以《谷歌是否让我们变得愚蠢》为题,痛苦地剖析了自己和互联网一代的大脑退化历程。

     

    The Atlantic Monthly  《大西洋月刊》

    JULY/AUGUST 2008   2008年7/8月号

    What the Internet is doing to our brains

    互联网究竟在对我们的大脑做些什么

    Is Google Making Us Stupid?

    谷歌是否让我们变得愚蠢?

    by Nicholas Carr


    "Dave, stop. Stop, will you? Stop, Dave. Will you stop, Dave?” So the supercomputer HAL pleads with the implacable astronaut Dave Bowman in a famous and weirdly poignant scene toward the end of Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey. Bowman, having nearly been sent to a deep-space death by the malfunctioning machine, is calmly, coldly disconnecting the memory circuits that control its artificial “brain”. “Dave, my mind is going,” HAL says, forlornly. “I can feel it. I can feel it.”

    “戴夫,别这样,别这样好吗?住手,戴夫。你能不能别这样,戴夫?求你了!” 这个深刻异常的著名场景出现在斯坦利·库布里克的电影《2001:太空奥德赛》的片尾,乃超级电脑HAL恳求无情的宇航员戴夫·鲍曼手下留情,放它一条生路。由于电脑故障,戴夫被送入茫茫的深度外太空,陷入绝境。于是他平静而冷酷地切断控制HAL人工大脑的内存电路。“戴夫,我的思想要没了,”HAL可怜巴巴地说道。“我感觉得到。我感觉得到!”

     

    I can feel it, too. Over the past few years I’ve had an uncomfortable sense that someone, or something, has been tinkering with my brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory. My mind isn’t going—so far as I can tell—but it’s changing. I’m not thinking the way I used to think. I can feel it most strongly when I’m reading. Immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy. My mind would get caught up in the narrative or the turns of the argument, and I’d spend hours strolling through long stretches of prose. That’s rarely the case anymore. Now my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do. I feel as if I’m always dragging my wayward brain back to the text. The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle.

    我也能感觉得到。过去几年来,我老有一种很不舒服的感觉,觉得有什么人,或什么东西,一直在修理我的脑袋,重绘我的‘脑电图’,重写我的‘脑内存’。根据我的判断,我的思想倒没跑掉,但它正在改变,我不再像过去那样来思考了。我读书的时候这种感觉尤其强烈。以前读一本书或一篇长文章根本不费什么劲儿,我的脑子会专注地跟随作者的叙述或议论,我会连续几个小时阅读长篇的散文,可如今我却很少能够这样了。现在,往往读过了两、三页,我的注意力就漂走了,变得烦躁不安,思绪中断,就开始找别的事情来干。我感觉好像自己总是要把漂移的心思给拽回来,专注于文本。以往自然而然的阅读活动,如今则成了一场战斗。

     

    I think I know what’s going on. For more than a decade now, I’ve been spending a lot of time online, searching and surfing and sometimes adding to the great databases of the Internet. The Web has been a godsend to me as a writer. Research that once required days in the stacks or periodical rooms of libraries can now be done in minutes. A few Google searches, some quick clicks on hyperlinks, and I’ve got the telltale fact or pithy quote I was after. Even when I’m not working, I’m as likely as not to be foraging in the Web’s info-thickets’ reading and writing e-mails, scanning headlines and blog posts, watching videos and listening to podcasts, or just tripping from link to link to link. (Unlike footnotes, to which they’re sometimes likened, hyperlinks don’t merely point to related works; they propel you toward them.)

    我想我知道究竟是怎么回事。过去这十多年来,我在网上花了好多时间,在互联网这个庞大的数据库中冲浪,搜寻,有时也会在上面发布些什么。对于我这样的作家,网络就像天赐宝物,过去要在图书馆的书堆或期刊室里花上好几天做的研究,现在几分钟就能搞定。Google几下,鼠标快速地点击几下超链接,我想要的那些很能说明问题的事实与简洁精练的引语就都有了。即便不工作的时候,我也很可能是在网络的信息密林里觅食:阅读和撰写电子邮件,浏览新闻标题和博客,收听收看播客和网络视频,要么就是一个链接一个链接地瞎点瞎转悠。(超链接有时被比作脚注,但跟脚注不同,超链接不只是给你指出相关文献,而是把你驱赶到那些文献。)

     

    For me, as for others, the Net is becoming a universal medium, the conduit for most of the information that flows through my eyes and ears and into my mind. The advantages of having immediate access to such an incredibly rich store of information are many, and they’ve been widely described and duly applauded. “The perfect recall of silicon memory,” Wired’s Clive Thompson has written, “can be an enormous boon to thinking.” But that boon comes at a price. As the media theorist Marshall McLuhan pointed out in the 1960s, media are not just passive channels of information. They supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought. And what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation. My mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles. Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.

    对我来说如此,对别人也是如此,网络正在变成一种万有媒介,一种信息管道,经由它,信息通过我的眼睛和耳朵进入我的思想。能够即时访问如此令人难以置信的海量信息存储有诸多的好处,人们已经对此进行了广泛的描述和足够的赞美。《连线》杂志的克里夫·汤普森曾经写道:“硅晶记忆的完美调用对于思维有着莫大的裨益。”但是这种好处是有代价的。正如媒体研究专家马歇尔·麦克卢汉在20世纪60年代所指出的那样,媒体可不仅仅是被动的信息渠道。它们提供思考的原料,但同时也在塑造着思考的过程!网络似乎正在一点点地销蚀我专注与沉思的能力。现如今,我的脑袋就盼着按照网络提供信息的方式来获取信息,即以飞速运动的粒子流的方式。过去我是个语言海洋中的深潜者,现在我好像踩着喷气滑水板,在海面上急速掠过。

     

    I’m not the only one. When I mention my troubles with reading to friends and acquaintances—literary types, most of them—many say they’re having similar experiences. The more they use the Web, the more they have to fight to stay focused on long pieces of writing. Some of the bloggers I follow have also begun mentioning the phenomenon. Scott Karp, who writes a blog about online media, recently confessed that he has stopped reading books altogether. “I was a lit major in college, and used to be [a] voracious book reader,” he wrote. “What happened?” He speculates on the answer: “What if I do all my reading on the web not so much because the way I read has changed, i.e. I’m just seeking convenience, but because the way I THINK has changed?”

    我不是唯一一个遇到此种问题的人。当我向朋友和熟人倾诉我阅读的苦恼(大多数都是文学类书籍),许多人告诉我他们也有相似的经历。上网上的越多,就越需要十分努力才能集中精力于那些长篇的作品。一些博客博主也开始提及这一现象。专门探讨在线媒体的博客博主斯科特·卡普最近承认,他已完全放弃了读书。卡普写道:“这是怎么了?我在大学是主修文学的,曾经是那么个饥渴的大书虫。”他说道:“如果我在网上阅读太多,并不是因为我的阅读方式已经改变,比如说我只是求个方便,而是我的‘思维’方式改变了,那该怎么办呢?”

     

    Bruce Friedman, who blogs regularly about the use of computers in medicine, also has described how the Internet has altered his mental habits. “I now have almost totally lost the ability to read and absorb a longish article on the web or in print,” he wrote earlier this year. A pathologist who has long been on the faculty of the University of Michigan Medical School, Friedman elaborated on his comment in a telephone conversation with me. His thinking, he said, has taken on a “staccato” quality, reflecting the way he quickly scans short passages of text from many sources online. “I can’t read War and Peace anymore,” he admitted. “I’ve lost the ability to do that. Even a blog post of more than three or four paragraphs is too much to absorb. I skim it.”

    长期在密歇根医学院任教的病理学家布鲁斯·弗里德曼(Bruce Friedman)定期在其博客上探讨医学领域中电脑的运用情况。在其博客上,他描述了互联网如何改变了他的思维习惯。他说:“现在我几乎完全丧失了阅读稍长一点的文章的能力,不管是网络版,还是纸质版。”他在电话里十分详尽地告诉我,他的思维呈现出一种“碎读”(staccato)特性,呈现出其上网快速浏览多方短文的方式。“我再也读不了《战争与和平》了。”弗里德曼说,“我已丧失了这种能力。即便是篇幅在三、四段以上的博文,对我来说都太长,难以接收,往往只是快速扫一眼就跑。”

     

    Anecdotes alone don’t prove much. And we still await the long-term neurological and psychological experiments that will provide a definitive picture of how Internet use affects cognition. But a recently published study of online research habits , conducted by scholars from University College London, suggests that we may well be in the midst of a sea change in the way we read and think. As part of the five-year research program, the scholars examined computer logs documenting the behavior of visitors to two popular research sites, one operated by the British Library and one by a U.K. educational consortium, that provide access to journal articles, e-books, and other sources of written information. They found that people using the sites exhibited “a form of skimming activity,” hopping from one source to another and rarely returning to any source they’d already visited. They typically read no more than one or two pages of an article or book before they would “bounce” out to another site. Sometimes they’d save a long article, but there’s no evidence that they ever went back and actually read it. The authors of the study report:

    单凭这些轶事说明不了什么。我们仍需等待长期的神经与心理科学的实验来给我们一个清晰的图景,究竟互联网的使用是如何影响我们的认知的。但是最近发表了一项研究,伦敦大学学院(UCL)的学者耗时五年时间,考察了人们的网络研究习惯。研究表明,我们阅读和思考的方式也许正处在巨变当中。作为这个五年研究项目的一部分,学者们以两个很受欢迎的学术研究网站为对象(一家为大英图书馆,一家为英国教育联盟经营,均提供电子期刊、电子书及其他文字信息的在线阅读),通过电脑中浏览纪录来分析访问者的行为,结果发现,读者的阅读呈现“一掠而过”的方式,从一篇文献跳到另一篇文献,且极少回看已经访问过的文献。他们打开一篇文章或一本书,通常读上一两页,便“蹦”到另一个网站去了。有时他们会把长文章保存下来,但没有证据显示他们日后确曾回头再读。研究报告称:

     

    It is clear that users are not reading online in the traditional sense; indeed there are signs that new forms of “reading” are emerging as users “power browse” horizontally through titles, contents pages and abstracts going for quick wins. It almost seems that they go online to avoid reading in the traditional sense.

    很明显,用户们不是在以传统方式进行在线阅读,相反,一种新‘阅读’方式的迹象已经出现:用户们在标题、内容页和摘要之间进行着一视同仁的‘海量浏览’,以求快速得到结果。这几乎可视为他们上网正是为了回避传统意义上的阅读。

     

    Thanks to the ubiquity of text on the Internet, not to mention the popularity of text-messaging on cell phones, we may well be reading more today than we did in the 1970s or 1980s, when television was our medium of choice. But it’s a different kind of reading, and behind it lies a different kind of thinking—perhaps even a new sense of the self. “We are not only what we read,” says Maryanne Wolf, a developmental psychologist at Tufts University and the author of Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain. “We are how we read.” Wolf worries that the style of reading promoted by the Net, a style that puts “efficiency” and “immediacy” above all else, may be weakening our capacity for the kind of deep reading that emerged when an earlier technology, the printing press, made long and complex works of prose commonplace. When we read online, she says, we tend to become “mere decoders of information.” Our ability to interpret text, to make the rich mental connections that form when we read deeply and without distraction, remains largely disengaged.

    互联网上文字无处不在,更别提手机短信风靡,因此我们比20世纪70年代或者80年代的阅读量要多得多,那时电视是我们的首选媒体。但这是一种不同的阅读方式,其背后是一种不同的思维方式,也许还有一种新的自我意识。塔夫茨大学的发展心理学家玛丽安妮·沃尔夫(Maryanne Wolf)说:“我们是什么样的人,不仅看我们读什么样的书,还要看我们怎么读书。”沃尔夫著有《普鲁斯特与鱿鱼:阅读思维的科学与故事》(Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain)。她担心,网络助长的这种将“效率”和“直接”置于一切之上的新阅读风格,或会削弱我们进行深入阅读的能力。几百年前的印刷术,催生了我们的这种能力,把阅读长且复杂的作品变成寻常之事。而上网阅读时,我们充其量只是一台“信息解码器”,而我们专注地进行深入阅读时所形成的那种理解文本的能力、那种丰富的精神联想,在很大程度上都丧失掉了。

     

    Reading, explains Wolf, is not an instinctive skill for human beings. It’s not etched into our genes the way speech is. We have to teach our minds how to translate the symbolic characters we see into the language we understand. And the media or other technologies we use in learning and practicing the craft of reading play an important part in shaping the neural circuits inside our brains. Experiments demonstrate that readers of ideograms, such as the Chinese, develop a mental circuitry for reading that is very different from the circuitry found in those of us whose written language employs an alphabet. The variations extend across many regions of the brain, including those that govern such essential cognitive functions as memory and the interpretation of visual and auditory stimuli. We can expect as well that the circuits woven by our use of the Net will be different from those woven by our reading of books and other printed works.

    沃尔夫认为,阅读并非人类本能的技巧,不像说话那样铭刻于我们的基因。我们得训练自己的大脑,让它学会如何将我们所看到的字符转换成我们所理解的语言。我们在学习和实践我们的阅读技能时所利用的媒介和技术对于塑造我们大脑中的神经电路发挥着重要的作用。实验表明,像中文这样的表意文字的读者会形成一种完全不同于我们这样的字母文字读者的神经电路。这种差别延伸到大脑的许多区域,包括那些管辖如记忆、视觉和听觉刺激的解读等十分重要的认知功能的区域。我们同样可以预知,由网络运用所编织的神经网络也会不同于阅读印刷品所编织的神经网络。

     

    Sometime in 1882, Friedrich Nietzsche bought a typewriter—a Malling-Hansen Writing Ball, to be precise. His vision was failing, and keeping his eyes focused on a page had become exhausting and painful, often bringing on crushing headaches. He had been forced to curtail his writing, and he feared that he would soon have to give it up. The typewriter rescued him, at least for a time. Once he had mastered touch-typing, he was able to write with his eyes closed, using only the tips of his fingers. Words could once again flow from his mind to the page.

    1882 年,尼采买了台打字机,确切地说,是一个曼宁—汉森写作球。那时尼采的视力下降很厉害,盯着纸看的时间长了,就感到十分疲劳和痛苦,经常头疼欲裂,被迫减少写作,他担心不久之后就得完全放弃。但打字机救了他,至少有一段时间如此——他学会了盲打,只靠指尖闭着眼睛也能写作了,文字再次从其脑海流淌于纸上。

     

    But the machine had a subtler effect on his work. One of Nietzsche’s friends, a composer, noticed a change in the style of his writing. His already terse prose had become even tighter, more telegraphic. “Perhaps you will through this instrument even take to a new idiom,” the friend wrote in a letter, noting that, in his own work, his “‘thoughts’ in music and language often depend on the quality of pen and paper.”

    然而,新机器也对其作品产生了微妙的影响。他的一个作曲家朋友为此写信给他,指出其写作风格的变化,说他原本已经够简洁的文风变得更为紧凑,更像电报。这位作曲家朋友注意到自己作曲时,音乐思维和语言常常取决于纸笔的特性,他在给尼采的信中写道:“也许新机器的运用还会让您写出新的习语。”

     

    “You are right,” Nietzsche replied, “our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts.” Under the sway of the machine, writes the German media scholar Friedrich A. Kittler , Nietzsche’s prose “changed from arguments to aphorisms, from thoughts to puns, from rhetoric to telegram style.”

    “您说得对,”尼采在回信中说,“我们的写作工具参与塑造了我们的思想。”德国媒体学者弗里德里希·基特勒认为,在打字机的影响下,尼采的文风“从论辩变成了格言,从思索变成了双关语,从华丽的言辞变成了电报式的风格”。

     

    The human brain is almost infinitely malleable. People used to think that our mental meshwork, the dense connections formed among the 100 billion or so neurons inside our skulls, was largely fixed by the time we reached adulthood. But brain researchers have discovered that that’s not the case. James Olds, a professor of neuroscience who directs the Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study at George Mason University, says that even the adult mind “is very plastic.” Nerve cells routinely break old connections and form new ones. “The brain,” according to Olds, “has the ability to reprogram itself on the fly, altering the way it functions.”

    人类大脑具有无限的可塑性。人们过去一直认为,我们的神经网状结构,我们头盖骨下那数以千亿记的神经元之间的那种紧密联系,在我们成年的时候就已经固定不变了。但是脑科学家发现情况并非如此。乔治·曼森大学克拉斯洛高等研究院的院长神经科学教授詹姆斯·奥兹指出,成人的大脑仍“极具可塑性”。神经细胞通常打破旧有连接建立新的连接。他说:“大脑可以不断改造自己,改变其运转方式。”

    As we use what the sociologist Daniel Bell has called our “intellectual technologies”—the tools that extend our mental rather than our physical capacities—we inevitably begin to take on the qualities of those technologies. The mechanical clock, which came into common use in the 14th century, provides a compelling example. In Technics and Civilization, the historian and cultural critic Lewis Mumford described how the clock “disassociated time from human events and helped create the belief in an independent world of mathematically measurable sequences.” The “abstract framework of divided time” became “the point of reference for both action and thought.”

    在我们运用社会学家丹尼尔·贝尔所称的“智力技术”的时候,即那些扩展我们的思维能力而不是体力的工具,我们不可避免地开始呈现那些技术的特性。十四世纪开始大量使用的机械钟表就是一个明证。在其所著《技术与文明》一书中,历史学家、文化批评家刘易斯·曼福德描绘了钟表是如何“把时间跟人类活动分离出来,帮助人们形成一种观念,即时间是一个由可以进行数学测量的序列构成的独立世界。”这种“抽象的可分割的时间框架”成为了人们“行动和思维的参照点”。

     

    The clock’s methodical ticking helped bring into being the scientific mind and the scientific man. But it also took something away. As the late MIT computer scientist Joseph Weizenbaum  observed in his 1976 book, Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment to Calculation, the conception of the world that emerged from the widespread use of timekeeping instruments “remains an impoverished version of the older one, for it rests on a rejection of those direct experiences that formed the basis for, and indeed constituted, the old reality.” In deciding when to eat, to work, to sleep, to rise, we stopped listening to our senses and started obeying the clock.

    钟表规则有序的滴答运行帮助产生了有条理的思维和有条理的人。但是它也带走了某些东西。正如麻省理工学院已故计算机科学家约瑟夫·魏辰堡在其1976年的著作《计算机能力与人类判断力:从判断走向计算》中指出的那样,计时器的大规模使用所产生的人们对于世界的感知“是旧有感知的一个更为贫乏的版本,因为它基于对直接经历的抛弃,而这些直接经历是形成旧有现实世界的基础,或者说就构成了原来的现实世界。”在决定何时吃饭,何时工作,何时睡觉,何时起床时,我们不再听从我们的感觉,而是开始服从于时钟。

     

    The process of adapting to new intellectual technologies is reflected in the changing metaphors we use to explain ourselves to ourselves. When the mechanical clock arrived, people began thinking of their brains as operating “like clockwork.” Today, in the age of software, we have come to think of them as operating “like computers.” But the changes, neuroscience tells us, go much deeper than metaphor. Thanks to our brain’s plasticity, the adaptation occurs also at a biological level.

    我们适应这些智力技术的过程也在我们用来进行自我阐释的那些不断变化的隐喻中得到了体现。机械钟表发明后,人们开始认为他们的大脑是在“像钟表一样”运行,在今天这个软件时代,我们开始认为我们的大脑是在“像电脑一样”运转。但是,神经科学告诉我们,这些变化,远比这些隐喻所表现的要深刻得多。托我们大脑可塑性的福,在生物学层面上,这种适应也在发生。

     

    The Internet promises to have particularly far-reaching effects on cognition. In a paper published in 1936, the British mathematician Alan Turing proved that a digital computer, which at the time existed only as a theoretical machine, could be programmed to perform the function of any other information-processing device. And that’s what we’re seeing today. The Internet, an immeasurably powerful computing system, is subsuming most of our other intellectual technologies. It’s becoming our map and our clock, our printing press and our typewriter, our calculator and our telephone, and our radio and TV.

    互联网必将对于人类认知产生一些独特的深远影响。在其1936年发表的一篇论文中,英国数学家阿兰·图灵证明,电子计算机——尽管当时还只是停留在理论上,将能够被编程来发挥任何信息处理装置能够起到的作用。这就是今天我们所看到的情况。互联网这个难以估量的强大计算系统,正在涵盖我们绝大多数的智力技术。它正成为我们的钟表和地图,我们的印刷厂和打字机,我们的计算器和电话,还有我们的收音机和电视机。

     

    When the Net absorbs a medium, that medium is re-created in the Net’s image. It injects the medium’s content with hyperlinks, blinking ads, and other digital gewgaws, and it surrounds the content with the content of all the other media it has absorbed. A new e-mail message, for instance, may announce its arrival as we’re glancing over the latest headlines at a newspaper’s site. The result is to scatter our attention and diffuse our concentration.

    每当网络吸纳一种媒体,这种媒体就被按照网络的形象重塑。网络在这种媒体的内容中注入大量的超链接、令人生厌的广告以及其他数字化噱头,用它所吸纳的所有其他媒体的内容来包围这个媒体的内容。比如,在我们浏览一家报社网站的最新头条的时候,会有声音响起,提示你收到了新的电子邮件。其结果是我们的注意力被分散。

     

    The Net’s influence doesn’t end at the edges of a computer screen, either. As people’s minds become attuned to the crazy quilt of Internet media, traditional media have to adapt to the audience’s new expectations. Television programs add text crawls and pop-up ads, and magazines and newspapers shorten their articles, introduce capsule summaries, and crowd their pages with easy-to-browse info-snippets. When, in March of this year, The New York Times decided to devote the second and third pages of every edition to article abstracts , its design director, Tom Bodkin, explained that the “shortcuts” would give harried readers a quick “taste” of the day’s news, sparing them the “less efficient” method of actually turning the pages and reading the articles. Old media have little choice but to play by the new-media rules.

    网络的影响远远超出了电脑屏幕的界限。当人们的思维方式适应了互联网媒体百纳被式的呈现方式后,传统媒体也会做出改变,以迎合读者或观众的新期望。电视节目加入了滚动字幕和不断跳出的小广告,报刊则缩短其文章的长度,引入一小块一小块的摘要,在版面上堆砌各种易于浏览的零碎信息。今年3月,《纽约时报》便决定将其第2和第3版改为内容精粹。其版面主管汤姆·博金解释说这些“捷径”可以使忙碌的读者可以快速“品尝”当天的新闻,免去他们“不那么高效”地翻阅版面阅读文章的麻烦。旧媒体别无选择,只有按照新媒体的规则来办。

     

    Never has a communications system played so many roles in our lives—or exerted such broad influence over our thoughts—as the Internet does today. Yet, for all that’s been written about the Net, there’s been little consideration of how, exactly, it’s reprogramming us. The Net’s intellectual ethic remains obscure.

    没有哪种沟通系统能像今天的互联网这样,在我们的生活中发挥如此众多的作用,或者说对我们的思维模式产生了如此广泛的影响。然而,在所有这些关于网络的著述中,很少有人思考互联网究竟是如何在对我们进行重新编程。网络的知识伦理仍然模糊不清。

     

    About the same time that Nietzsche started using his typewriter, an earnest young man named Frederick Winslow Taylor carried a stopwatch into the Midvale Steel plant in Philadelphia and began a historic series of experiments aimed at improving the efficiency of the plant’s machinists. With the approval of Midvale’s owners, he recruited a group of factory hands, set them to work on various metalworking machines, and recorded and timed their every movement as well as the operations of the machines. By breaking down every job into a sequence of small, discrete steps and then testing different ways of performing each one, Taylor created a set of precise instructions—an “algorithm,” we might say today—for how each worker should work. Midvale’s employees grumbled about the strict new regime, claiming that it turned them into little more than automatons, but the factory’s productivity soared.

    就在尼采开始使用打字机的几乎同时,一个叫做弗雷德里克·温斯洛·泰勒的认真的年轻人带着一块秒表来到了费城的米德维尔钢铁厂,开始了一系列具有历史意义的实验,旨在提高钢厂机械工人的工作效率。在征得米德维尔钢厂老板的同意后,他招募了工厂的一批工人,让他们在各种工作台上工作,记录下他们的每一个动作以及耗费的时间,还有机器的运行情况。他随后把每一个工作分解成为一系列的微小步骤,并且测试完成各个步骤的不同方式。由此,泰勒给每个工人制定了精确的工作指南,今天我们可以称之为“算法”。米德维尔的雇员对这种严苛的新体制颇多抱怨,认为这把他们变得跟机器人并无二致,但是工厂的生产力大幅攀升。

     

    More than a hundred years after the invention of the steam engine, the Industrial Revolution had at last found its philosophy and its philosopher. Taylor’s tight industrial choreography—his “system,” as he liked to call it—was embraced by manufacturers throughout the country and, in time, around the world. Seeking maximum speed, maximum efficiency, and maximum output, factory owners used time-and-motion studies to organize their work and configure the jobs of their workers. The goal, as Taylor defined it in his celebrated 1911 treatise, The Principles of Scientific Management, was to identify and adopt, for every job, the “one best method” of work and thereby to effect “the gradual substitution of science for rule of thumb throughout the mechanic arts.” Once his system was applied to all acts of manual labor, Taylor assured his followers, it would bring about a restructuring not only of industry but of society, creating a utopia of perfect efficiency. “In the past the man has been first,” he declared; “in the future the system must be first.”

    这样,在蒸汽机发明一百多年后,工业革命终于迎来了它的哲学理念和哲学家。泰勒的严格工业步骤,或者“机制”——他自己喜欢这么叫——在全国范围内为工厂主们所欣然采纳,并及时推广至全世界。为了追求最快速度、最高效率、最大产量,工厂主们采用时间—动作研究来组织生产、配置工人。正如泰勒在其1911年那篇广为称道的论文《科学管理之原理》中所指出的那样,这样做的目的是要为每一件工作找出并采用“最好的方法”,从而“以科学来逐渐取代机械行业中的那些基于经验的实用方法”。泰勒向其追随者保证,一旦其机制运用于所有手工劳作,将不仅导致产业的重构,还会导致社会的重构,创造出一个完美效率的理想之国。他宣称:“过去人是第一位的,今后机制将是第一位的。”

     

    Taylor’s system is still very much with us; it remains the ethic of industrial manufacturing. And now, thanks to the growing power that computer engineers and software coders wield over our intellectual lives, Taylor’s ethic is beginning to govern the realm of the mind as well. The Internet is a machine designed for the efficient and automated collection, transmission, and manipulation of information, and its legions of programmers are intent on finding the “one best method”—the perfect algorithm—to carry out every mental movement of what we’ve come to describe as “knowledge work.”

    今天,泰勒的机制仍然在大量使用,它仍是工业生产的伦理。现在,托计算机硬件和软件工程师们对于我们智力生活所拥有的巨大本领的福,泰勒的伦理开始主宰我们的大脑领域。互联网就是设计用来进行信息的高效自动收集、传播和操控的机器。其庞大的程序员队伍致力于找到“一个最好的方法”——最好的算法——来实施我们称之为“知识工作”的每一个脑力活动。

     

    Google’s headquarters, in Mountain View, California—the Googleplex—is the Internet’s high church, and the religion practiced inside its walls is Taylorism. Google, says its chief executive, Eric Schmidt, is “a company that’s founded around the science of measurement,” and it is striving to “systematize everything” it does. Drawing on the terabytes of behavioral data it collects through its search engine and other sites, it carries out thousands of experiments a day, according to the Harvard Business Review, and it uses the results to refine the algorithms that increasingly control how people find information and extract meaning from it. What Taylor did for the work of the hand, Google is doing for the work of the mind.

    位于加利福尼亚山景地区的谷歌总部,就是互联网的最高教堂,在其围墙之内所奉行的宗教就是泰勒主义。谷歌首席执行官埃里克·施密特说,该公司是“一家围绕测量科学建立起来的公司”,致力于“将一切系统化”。据《哈佛商业评论》报道,谷歌利用从其搜索引擎和其他网站收集来的数以兆兆(TB)字节的海量行为数据,每天进行数以千计的实验,并将结果用来深化和完善其算法,这些算法越来越控制着人们如何找到信息并从中抽取感兴趣的内容。泰勒所运用于体力劳动的那一套,谷歌正在运用于脑力劳动。

     

    The company has declared that its mission is “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” It seeks to develop “the perfect search engine,” which it defines as something that “understands exactly what you mean and gives you back exactly what you want.” In Google’s view, information is a kind of commodity, a utilitarian resource that can be mined and processed with industrial efficiency. The more pieces of information we can “access” and the faster we can extract their gist, the more productive we become as thinkers.

    谷歌还宣布,其使命是“将全世界的信息组织起来,使之随处可得,随处可用。”它试图开发“完美的搜索引擎,”即谷歌所说的能够“准确领会你的意图,并精确地回馈给你所要的东西”的搜索引擎。按照谷歌的观点,信息是一种商品,一种可以以工业效率来进行挖掘和处理的实用资源。我们能接触到的信息越多,提取其精髓越快,我们就会成为一个越高产的思想家。问题是,它会使我们越变越蠢吗?

     

    Where does it end? Sergey Brin and Larry Page, the gifted young men who founded Google while pursuing doctoral degrees in computer science at Stanford, speak frequently of their desire to turn their search engine into an artificial intelligence, a HAL-like machine that might be connected directly to our brains. “The ultimate search engine is something as smart as people—or smarter,” Page said in a speech a few years back. “For us, working on search is a way to work on artificial intelligence.” In a 2004 interview with Newsweek, Brin said, “Certainly if you had all the world’s information directly attached to your brain, or an artificial brain that was smarter than your brain, you’d be better off.” Last year, Page told a convention of scientists that Google is “really trying to build artificial intelligence and to do it on a large scale.”

    它最终会走向何处呢?舍奇·布林和拉里·佩奇这两个才华横溢的年轻人,当初是在斯坦福大学计算机科学攻读博士学位的时候创立了谷歌。他们多次谈到想把他们的搜索引擎变成一个人工智能,一个像HAL那样的机器,可以直接连接到大脑。在几年前的一次演讲中,佩奇说道:“最终的搜索引擎是像人一样聪明的东西,或者比人更聪明。对于我们来说,进行搜索的研究就是进行人工智能的研究的一种方式。” 2004年在接受《新闻周刊》采访时,布林说:“如果全世界的信息都连在你大脑,或者一个比你大脑更聪明的人工脑上面,那你的境况就会非常好。”去年,在一次科学家大会上,佩奇说谷歌是“真的试图构建人工智能,并且大规模地构建”。

     

    Such an ambition is a natural one, even an admirable one, for a pair of math whizzes with vast quantities of cash at their disposal and a small army of computer scientists in their employ. A fundamentally scientific enterprise, Google is motivated by a desire to use technology, in Eric Schmidt’s words, “to solve problems that have never been solved before,” and artificial intelligence is the hardest problem out there. Why wouldn’t Brin and Page want to be the ones to crack it?

    对于拥有巨额现金可以支配,雇用着一批计算机科学家的这两个数学奇才来说,有这样的雄心壮志是很自然的,甚至是令人敬佩的。作为一家本质上的科技公司,按埃里克·施密特的话来说,谷歌有着利用技术的动因,“来解决以前从未得到解决的问题”,而人工智能则是尚未解决的最为困难的问题。布林和佩奇怎么会不想当解决这个难题的人呢?

     

    Still, their easy assumption that we’d all “be better off” if our brains were supplemented, or even replaced, by an artificial intelligence is unsettling. It suggests a belief that intelligence is the output of a mechanical process, a series of discrete steps that can be isolated, measured, and optimized. In Google’s world, the world we enter when we go online, there’s little place for the fuzziness of contemplation. Ambiguity is not an opening for insight but a bug to be fixed. The human brain is just an outdated computer that needs a faster processor and a bigger hard drive.

    然而,他们这个如果我们的大脑得到人工智能的补充甚至取代我们就会境况很好的假设却令人不安。它表达出一种观念,即智能是机械过程的产物,是一系列可以孤立、测量和优化的离散步骤。在谷歌的世界里,我们上网时所进入的这个世界,没有任何空间让人们进行模糊的沉思。歧义不是一个通向独到见解的出口,而是一个必须修正的程序错误。人脑只不过是一台落伍的电脑,需要更快的处理器和更大的硬盘。

     

    The idea that our minds should operate as high-speed data-processing machines is not only built into the workings of the Internet, it is the network’s reigning business model as well. The faster we surf across the Web—the more links we click and pages we view—the more opportunities Google and other companies gain to collect information about us and to feed us advertisements. Most of the proprietors of the commercial Internet have a financial stake in collecting the crumbs of data we leave behind as we flit from link to link—the more crumbs, the better. The last thing these companies want is to encourage leisurely reading or slow, concentrated thought. It’s in their economic interest to drive us to distraction.

    这种我们的大脑应当像高速数据处理器那样运行的想法不仅被根植于互联网的运行当中,它也是网络商业活动的主导模式。我们在网上冲浪的速度越快,点击的链接越多,浏览的页面越多,谷歌和其它公司就获得越多的机会来收集我们的信息,提供给我们越多的广告。商业网络的大多数所有者都有着经济利益在里面,来收集我们从一个链接快速跳到另一个链接时留下的点滴信息——我们留下的信息越多对他们越好。这些公司最不愿意做的事情就是鼓励你悠闲缓慢的浏览或者全神贯注的思考。让我们注意力分散符合他们的经济利益。

     

    Maybe I’m just a worrywart. Just as there’s a tendency to glorify technological progress, there’s a countertendency to expect the worst of every new tool or machine. In Plato’s Phaedrus, Socrates bemoaned the development of writing. He feared that, as people came to rely on the written word as a substitute for the knowledge they used to carry inside their heads, they would, in the words of one of the dialogue’s characters, “cease to exercise their memory and become forgetful.” And because they would be able to “receive a quantity of information without proper instruction,” they would “be thought very knowledgeable when they are for the most part quite ignorant.” They would be “filled with the conceit of wisdom instead of real wisdom.” Socrates wasn’t wrong—the new technology did often have the effects he feared—but he was shortsighted. He couldn’t foresee the many ways that writing and reading would serve to spread information, spur fresh ideas, and expand human knowledge (if not wisdom).

    也许我只是杞人忧天。正如人们有着美化技术进步的倾向,人们也有担心每一种新工具或新机器的坏处的另一种相反倾向。在柏拉图的《对话 费德罗篇》中,苏格拉底表达出其对于文字发展的不满,担心当人们开始依赖文字来替代原来储存于脑海中的知识的时候,用对话中另外一个人物的话来说,人们就会“不再运用他们的记忆力,从而变得健忘”。而且由于他们能够“无需指引就可以获得大量信息”,他们就会“在通常实际上十分无知的情况下被认为很有知识”,他们的脑子里就会“塞满虚假的智慧而不是真的智慧”。苏格拉底说的没错——新的技术通常带来它所担忧的后果——但是他过于短视,他没有预见到在很多方面,写作和阅读会传播信息、激发新思想、拓展人类的知识(甚至智慧)。

    The arrival of Gutenberg’s printing press, in the 15th century, set off another round of teeth gnashing. The Italian humanist Hieronimo Squarciafico worried that the easy availability of books would lead to intellectual laziness, making men “less studious” and weakening their minds. Others argued that cheaply printed books and broadsheets would undermine religious authority, demean the work of scholars and scribes, and spread sedition and debauchery. As New York University professor Clay Shirky notes, “Most of the arguments made against the printing press were correct, even prescient.” But, again, the doomsayers were unable to imagine the myriad blessings that the printed word would deliver.

    15世纪古腾堡的印刷厂也曾让人恨得咬牙切齿。意大利人文主义者Hieronimo Squarciafico担心书籍随便可以得到会导致智力懒惰,使人们“不那么用功”,从而削弱人们的脑力。另有一些人则认为,这些花费颇少印刷出来的书籍和大开本报纸会削弱宗教的权威,贬低学者和书吏的工作,散布煽动性和不道德的言论。正如纽约大学教授克雷·谢奇所说:“反对印刷厂的大部分观点都是正确的,甚至是很有先见之明。” 但是,再一次,这些灾难预言者没能想到印刷能够给人们带来的无数福祉。

     

    So, yes, you should be skeptical of my skepticism. Perhaps those who dismiss critics of the Internet as Luddites or nostalgists will be proved correct, and from our hyperactive, data-stoked minds will spring a golden age of intellectual discovery and universal wisdom. Then again, the Net isn’t the alphabet, and although it may replace the printing press, it produces something altogether different. The kind of deep reading that a sequence of printed pages promotes is valuable not just for the knowledge we acquire from the author’s words but for the intellectual vibrations those words set off within our own minds. In the quiet spaces opened up by the sustained, undistracted reading of a book, or by any other act of contemplation, for that matter, we make our own associations, draw our own inferences and analogies, foster our own ideas. Deep reading, as Maryanne Wolf argues, is indistinguishable from deep thinking.

    因此,对,你应该对我的怀疑论调持怀疑态度。也许那些认为互联网的批评者不过是阻碍技术进步的勒德分子或者怀旧主义者的人会被证明是正确的,从我们超级活跃、填饱数据的大脑将会涌现一个知识发现与普遍智慧的黄金时期。然而还有一点,网络不是字母,尽管它也许会取代印刷术,网络产生全然不同的东西。那种一页一页的印刷纸张所带来的深入阅读是很有价值的,不仅仅是因为我们从作者的话语中获取到了知识,而是因为这些话语在我们大脑中所激起的知识共鸣。在持续且不受干扰的阅读一本书籍、或者任何沉思活动所给我们打开的那一片宁静空间中,对于作者所陈之事,我们进行自己的联想,做出自己的类比和推断,形成我们自己的思想。正如玛丽安妮·沃尔夫所说,深入阅读跟深入思考密不可分。

     

    If we lose those quiet spaces, or fill them up with “content,” we will sacrifice something important not only in our selves but in our culture. In a recent essay, the playwright Richard Foreman eloquently described what’s at stake:

    如果我们失去那些宁静的空间,或者用“内容“将它们填满,我们将牺牲掉不仅我们自身还有我们文化中一些非常重要的东西。在最近的一篇文章里,剧作家理查德·福尔曼非常雄辩地刻画了面临的风险:

     

    I come from a tradition of Western culture, in which the ideal (my ideal) was the complex, dense and “cathedral-like” structure of the highly educated and articulate personality—a man or woman who carried inside themselves a personally constructed and unique version of the entire heritage of the West. [But now] I see within us all (myself included) the replacement of complex inner density with a new kind of self—evolving under the pressure of information overload and the technology of the “instantly available.”

    我所受的熏陶是西方文化传统,在这种传统中理想(我的理想)是教育程度非常高的、能说会道的人所构成的十分复杂、浓厚、像教堂一样的结构——男人或者女人,其内心都有一个他/她所构建的整个西方传统的独特版本。[但是现在]我在我们中间(包括我自己)看到我们内心那种复杂的浓厚系统已经被一种新的自我所取代,这种自我在信息过载和立等可得的技术压力下不断演化。

     

    As we are drained of our “inner repertory of dense cultural inheritance,” Foreman concluded, we risk turning into “‘pancake people’—spread wide and thin as we connect with that vast network of information accessed by the mere touch of a button.”

    当我们“内在的浓厚文化传承库藏”被排干后,福尔曼总结道,我们就在冒成为“‘薄饼人’的风险——在我们仅需轻点鼠标按键就跟庞大的信息网络相连的时候铺得太广太薄”。

     

    I’m haunted by that scene in 2001. What makes it so poignant, and so weird, is the computer’s emotional response to the disassembly of its mind: its despair as one circuit after another goes dark, its childlike pleading with the astronaut—“I can feel it. I can feel it. I’m afraid”—and its final reversion to what can only be called a state of innocence. HAL’s outpouring of feeling contrasts with the emotionlessness that characterizes the human figures in the film, who go about their business with an almost robotic efficiency. Their thoughts and actions feel scripted, as if they’re following the steps of an algorithm. In the world of 2001, people have become so machinelike that the most human character turns out to be a machine. That’s the essence of Kubrick’s dark prophecy: as we come to rely on computers to mediate our understanding of the world, it is our own intelligence that flattens into artificial intelligence.

    《2001:太空奥德赛》里的那个场景让我备受煎熬。这场景之所以如此深刻、如此怪异,是那台计算机对其大脑被拆解所做出的情感反应:当一个接一个电路断电时它所表现出来的深深绝望,它在宇航员戴夫面前那孩童般的恳求-——“我能感觉得到!我能感觉得到!我害怕!”——还有它最终回复到只能称为纯真的状态。HAL的情感发泄跟电影里人的那种冷漠无情形成鲜明对照,那些人以机器人般的效率干着手头的活计。他们的思想和行为让人感觉到是在遵循预先设定的指令,好像在按照一个算法的步骤在行事。在2001年的世界,人们已经变得如此像机器,以至于大多数人物结果都成了机器。斯坦利·库布里克黑色预言的实质在于:当我们依赖电脑作为理解世界的媒介时,实际上是我们自己的智能蜕变成了人工智能。

     

    原文链接:http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google

     

     

    展开全文
  • (HTML5大神可以就此飘过,以前通过JS写的那么多的代码,现在通过HTML5居然可以怎么简单) ,废话就少说了,直接上代码: <!...在回头看以前写的JS代码是否瞬间觉得HTML5的强大了啊???  
        (HTML5大神可以就此飘过,以前通过JS写的那么多的代码,现在通过HTML5居然可以怎么简单) ,废话就少说了,直接上代码:
    <!DOCTYPE html>
    <html>
    <head lang="en">
        <meta charset="UTF-8">
        <title></title>
    </head>
    <body>
    <header>
        <h3>用户注册</h3>
    </header>
    <nav>
        <span style="color: #666; font-size: 14px">已有账号?</span><a href="#">去登录?</a><p></p><p></p>
    </nav>
    <section>
        <fieldset>
            <legend>请正确填写相关信息</legend>
            <form action="#" method="post" autocomplete="on">
              <p><span style="letter-spacing: 1.3em">真实姓</span>名:<label><input type="text" required name="name" pattern="[\u4e00-\u9fa5]{2,}"  oninvalid="validatelt(this,'真实姓名必须是中文,且长度不小于2')"/></label></p>
                <!-- require属性,规定必须在提交之前填写输入域(不能为空)-->
                <!-- pattern属性,描述了一个正则表达式用于验证 <input> 元素的值-->
                <!-- required属性,要求该输入域不能为空 -->
                <p><span style="letter-spacing:6em">昵</span>称:<label><input type="text" placeholder="该昵称用于登录" required name="nichen"/></label></p>
                <!-- placehokder属性,用于对该输入框的提示内容-->
                <p><span style="letter-spacing: 1.3em">登录密</span>码:<label><input type="password" pattern="[A-Za-z0-9]{6,30}" name="password" oninvalid="validatelt(this,'密码长度至少为六位,且不能有中文')" /></label></p>
                <p><span style="letter-spacing: 6em">性</span>别:<label>
                    <input type="radio" name="sex" value="man" />男:</label>
                    <input type="radio" name="sex" value="women"/>女:</label>
                </p>
                <p><span style="letter-spacing: 1.3em">出生日</span>期:<label><input type="date" name="birthday" max="2016/7/10" required/></label></p>
                <p><span style="letter-spacing: 1.3em">电子邮</span>箱:<label><input name="email" type="email" required/></label></p>
                <p><span style="letter-spacing: 1.3em">联系电</span>话:<label><input name="phone" type="text"  required  pattern="1[34578]\d{9}$"  oninvalid="validatelt(this,'电话号只能是11位的整数')" /></label></p>
                <p><span>选择你喜欢的颜色:</span><label><input name="color" type="color" required/></label></p>
                <input type="submit"/>
            </form>
        </fieldset>
    </section>
    <footer>
        <hr/>
        底部栏
    </footer>
    </body>
    <script>
        //对悬浮窗的设置
        function validatelt(inputelement,err){
            if(inputelement.validity.patternMismatch){
                inputelement.setCustomValidity(err);
                //错误后就清空,不过执行顺序有点问题就不要了
    //                if(confirm("输入有误,是否清空此项?")){
    //                    inputelement.value="";
    //                }
            }else{
                inputelement.setCustomValidity("");
                return true;
            }
        }
    </script>
    </html>


    在回头看以前写的JS代码是否瞬间觉得HTML5的强大了啊???
         

    展开全文
  • 如何让自己的内心强大起来

    千次阅读 2012-02-20 09:58:05
    以至于人们折服! 世界上有这么一种人,似乎特别得到老天爷的偏爱——他总是有自己的理想,并且总是努力去做,最重要的是,老天爷每一次都会帮他取得成功。是不是很令人羡慕?其实,我一直以为,与其说每个人有...
  • 资源管理器变得像Chrome一样标签化 前段时间WIn10开发者预览版发布了更新通知,其中一个主要特性就是给资源管理器添加了标签化的功能。 习惯了各种浏览器便捷的标签化管理,早就想要这个实用的功能了。 在...
  • 一些实用的cmd命令,变得很牛X

    万次阅读 多人点赞 2016-03-09 01:29:02
    结合上面介绍的-t参数一起使用,会有好的效果哦。  -n 定义向目标IP发送数据包的次数,默认为3次。如果网络速度比较慢,3次对我们来说也浪费了不少时间,因为现在我们的目的仅仅是判断目标IP是否存在,那么...
  • 相信不少人,写代码忘我的时候,都会忘记层级之间的缩进,导致代码,看着非常不清晰,这个时候,你是否还在手动一点点缩进,这个时候,我们需要利用编辑器的强大功能啦 笔者使用Vscode,一个很好用的编辑器。有许多...
  • 深邃的黑色背景还有强大的语法高亮,小编带你感受心的Python,下面跟着小编一步一步走;本篇文章主要讲解的是Windows系统下的,Linux下的会在后期文章中继续发出 多Python视频、源码、资料加群683380553免费获取...
  • 将控件拖拽到流程区,通过控件的黄色小方框中拉出连接线,与其它控件进行连接,通过流程图不仅直观体现出控件的流向,而且能够对控件进行设置,每个控件分工清晰,整个流程一目了然,维护扩展更加简单。...
  • 大学生如何让自己强大起来(计算机、电子方向)

    万次阅读 多人点赞 2012-05-20 00:20:54
    随着网络的高速普及和网络技术的快速提高,给共享软件创造了前所未有的发展机遇,使共享软件的传播、收费、注册变得非常便利,只需坐在电脑前通过网络就都能实现,共享软件迎来了辉煌时代。 微软4亿美元价格收购了...
  • OA的选型关乎企业的生存发展,除了需要重视“OA技术、OA品牌、OA产品、OA服务”四大要素之外,重要的其实是OA变得智能化的工作流引擎。毫不夸张的说,工作流是OA协同办公的核心,起到协助提高企业运营效率、...
  • 为什么python突然变得这么火了?

    千次阅读 2018-05-10 12:13:29
    可能会有一种感觉python突然之间变得这么火热了,个人感觉还是雷声大雨点小,真正用pytho落地的东西还是少,不可否认的python前途无量,现在人工智能的调用框架选择了python。所以目前阶段选择python入门学习没有...
  • 文章目录Ubuntu16.04最全深度美化教你如何变得有格调美化过程主题管理工具主题扁平化主题主题配套图标Arc Theme主题主题配套图标numix-gtk-theme主题主题及图标主题结语Mac主题(如果你真的很喜欢的话)主题及图标...
  • 作者:Andrew Brust原文地址:http://www.zdnet.com/article/can-data-science-notebooks-get-real-jupyter-lab-releases-to-users/ 副标题:Jupyter 笔记本已经突破了他们“展示和讲解”的角色,正变得更适合数据...
  • 位运算——强大得令人害怕

    万次阅读 多人点赞 2017-10-06 21:56:27
    模3运算只有三种状态:00,01,10,因此我们可以使用两个位来表示当前位%3,对于每一位,我们Two,One表示当前位的状态,B表示输入数字的对应位,Two+和One+表示输出状态。 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 ...
  • 构建知识图谱,让自己更值钱

    万次阅读 多人点赞 2017-01-04 07:03:27
    现在这个时代,信息极大丰富,知识浩如烟海,每个人每时每刻都被各种各样的知识、信息轰炸着,如何有效的选择对自己有价值的知识,如何构建一个独属于自己的知识体系并它为自己创造价值,变得越来越重要。...
  • 14. 框架支持Websocket,通讯变得更即时。 15. 框架支持redis缓存集群,你的系统飞起来。 16. 优质的售后服务。 2、 开发示例 框架整体体代码层次 整体采用多层工厂/依赖注入模式。 ...
  • 王阳明你内心强大的100句名言

    千次阅读 2019-07-30 08:52:40
    王阳明你内心强大的100句名言 1、你未看此花时,此花与汝同归于寂;你来看此花时,则此花颜色一时明白起来,便知此花不在你的心外。 2、种树者必培其根,种德者必养其心。 3、君自保重,我心送君三十里。 4、无...
  • 插件简介: DFT(又名Digital Film Tools)是一套强大的插件合集,几乎囊括了他们公司的所有插件,支持众多软件, 用与模拟光学相机滤镜,专业镜头,电影胶片和颗粒,镜头光晕,光学实验过程,色彩校正,键控抠像,...
  • 互联网时代,我们每天都在接受各种平台的知识的轰炸。每天看一些最新的知识,心灵鸡汤,干货,但是,我们却没有坐下来思考一下,我们看这些东西自己学习到了什么?
  • 在C++11之前,类模板和函数...可变参数模板的加入使得C++11的功能变得更加强大,而由此也带来了许多神奇的用法。 本文实例源码github地址:https://github.com/yngzMiao/yngzmiao-blogs/tree/master/2020Q2/20200401...
  • 您已经看到Revit 2012版API方面巨大的变化了—--- 底层架构方面的改变使得Revit API 变得更易于快速扩展新增功能,而Revit 下版本API将会达到一个新的里程碑!带来API新变化的一个领域是有关UI方面,新增的关于Revit...
  • 大家好,又到了学习Glide的时间了。...不过Glide的这个框架的功能实在是太强大了,它所能做的事情远远不止于目前我们所学的这些。因此,今天我们就再来学习一个新的功能模块,并且是一个非常重要的模块
  • Oh My Zsh 强大炫酷的Shell

    万次阅读 2018-10-18 22:50:00
    前言 Zsh介绍 ...但是却配置起来十分的麻烦,但有了oh-my-zsh之后,一切变得简单起来了 Oh My Zsh Oh My Zsh 是一款社区驱动的命令行工具 oh my zsh :https://github.com/robbyrussell/...
  • 树莓派3强大很多--相比树莓派2

    万次阅读 2017-11-09 10:19:41
    传送门:你以为你了解树莓派3?...相信看到这个消息的工程师、电子发烧友、开源硬件爱好者等都迫切希望能第一时间上手体验一番。在此之前,你还是先弄清楚几个问题比较好。 样子了没? 几乎
  • ArcGIS制图技巧系列(3)—地图有立体感

    万次阅读 多人点赞 2016-10-26 00:22:01
    ArcGIS制图技巧系列(3)—地图有立体感 by 李远祥 ...本章我们要实现一个非常伟大的目标,就是给非常扁平的地图做一个”丰胸“和”抽脂“的整形手术,变得玲珑浮凸。下面我们来看一张扁平的地图。
  • 世界如此险恶,你要内心强大

    千次阅读 2012-06-27 14:45:03
    一个由外在评价主宰自我认同的人实质上是一个遗失了真实自我的人。从外部世界得到的那个“自我”只要进驻到我们的心理结构,我们就成了外部世界的傀儡,失去了防御打击的能力。...要变得心理强大,就必须打破这个
  • 如何APK文件

    千次阅读 2015-12-03 15:41:29
    Android最初版本的APK文件只有2MB左右的大小,而现在的应用变得越来越大,动辄就是10几20MB。用户体验和开发者经验的积累是造成APK文件越来越大的直接原因,还有以下一些原因: dpi种类的增加([l m tv h x xx xxx]...

空空如也

空空如也

1 2 3 4 5 ... 20
收藏数 344,023
精华内容 137,609
关键字:

如何让自己变得更强大