Rogers LS3/5A still the best choice

BBC originally designed the LS3/5A as a studio monitor speaker, and the shoebox size loudspeaker produces impressive sound and has become the best mini loudspeaker in the world despite being a bit pricy, which is understandable as BBC is still imposing a 10% levy from each and every pair sold.

I bought my first pair of Rogers LS3/5A back in 1992, and it fit perfectly in my midget home. Partnering with ROTEL's pre-amp and power amp, the baby loudspeakers have kept making all my friends feel astonished how dramatic yet clean and clear sound could be produced from the small walnut wood boxes. The vocals were the most natural and the midrange was sublime. Compared to my old AR94 which was big and any other model I have listened to, this small British-made loudspeaker has cut the mustard in its brilliant midrange and stereo imaging, except for the very low-range as limited by its woofer size. But I am not a fan of sub-bass or synthesized sounds, and definitely don't feel a loss with less intense bass.

In recent years, my Rogers seemed to begin to lose its magic, and after rounds of primitive tests including replacing cables, trying out different versions of recordings, and eventually installing a new Roksan Blak amplifier which I was told can support the Rogers fantastically, all didn't seem promising!

A psychological unshakable assumption must have prevented me from thinking in terms of the speakers themselves. For years, I kept exploring new suspects, including my own ears. Eventually, I asked my son if the speakers sounded strange to him, and his response resolved all the puzzles. He said he thought I knew they were bad! Then I realized they had aged, and nothing can revert it.

So, I bought a new pair of the exact same Rogers LS3/5A in walnut wood. The moment they got connected up, the first batch of notes from Yoyo Ma's Bach Cello Suites was lively and real, with the low-side midrange sound of the amazing evenness of Ma's playing filling the room. You simply couldn't stop listening until the very end. Then, I switched to Latin American jazz. The vibrant and democratic collaborations of piano, trumpets and drums were all right in front of me, with every instrument so awesomely distinguishable, and again real!

Thank God! All my favourite music, from classic, jazz, to Jacky Cheung's, has now returned!

September 12, 2021

性別、認同、性取向與歧視

性別歧視在上世紀80年代開始受到關注，當時針對的僅是「生物性別」的歧視，即基於生物性別定義對男性或女性在某場合、角色、工作崗位等受到的不公平對待。而同性戀人士所受到的歧視，就一般不納入性別歧視的範圍，甚至有政府官員、議員、宗教團體帶頭歧視，視同性戀者為不道德、反倫理的異類。而事實上，我們的所謂道德標準，是基於對少數人的誤解和對科學的無知，認定他們的行為和取向離經叛道、違反道德倫理。上世紀50年代，著名電腦科學家 Alan Turing 的經歷是典型的歧視例子，他被強迫接受治療，蒙受極大的精神及身體虐待，至2009年英國首相Gordon Brown才正式代表國家向已故 Turing 作公開道歉。

過去數十年，科學研究對人的性別問題有了更清晰的了解，證明人的「性別」是不能單憑「生物性別」可以定義出來的。事實上，生物性別、自我性別認同、和性取向是三個獨立的屬性。這些屬性是與生俱來，無法改變，莫論後天培養。不少人於對三個獨立屬性存在根本性的誤解，譬如說，一個人生出來擁有男性生殖器官，生物性別是「男」，就理所當然認為他必定認同自己是男人，但事實上，他對自己的性別認同可以是「男」或「女」。換言之，他自我感覺是男性或女性，跟他的生物性別無關，是遺傳因子決定的，不能改變。然而，他的性取向（即他喜歡男生或女生）也是另一獨立屬性。

所以，嚴格來說，「性別」可以有8種不同組合*（生物雙性暫不計算在內），這是上天給予我們的，無對錯可言，你也只可接受！雖然大多數人（估計90%）是屬於8種性別中的兩種，即是擁有「男」的生物性別，同時認同自己是「男」性，喜歡「女」性；和擁有「女」的生物性別，認同自己是「女」性，喜歡「男」性。不少屬於這兩種主流性別的人，基於不了解或無知，對其他6種性別的人士產生歧視和敵對的態度。既然是與生俱來，就不存在「鼓勵」和「鼓吹」某種性別和取向。試問若然你的性取向是喜歡女生的，誰能成功「鼓勵」你去喜歡男生？

歧視，無論是出於偏見、無知或自私，是多數人對少數人的欺凌和侮辱，為少數人帶來痛苦。相比殘障人士受到的歧視，性小眾要面對道德責罵和沈重的社會壓力，長期自我壓制的心理狀態，可想而知。他們一般被稱為同性戀者，但事實沒有這麼簡單，他們對性別有不同的自我認同和取向，在尋找合適的伴侶時，要比主流性別的大眾難上千倍，還要承受社會對他們的誤解和歧視。

香港常以國際大都會自居、以文明先進見稱，但主流社會依然漠視小眾應有的權利，把少數性別人士說成一群不道德、毒害年輕人、甚至「危害國家安全」的社會毒瘤。殘障人士、精神病患者、性小眾都不是罪犯，他們沒有大多數人的幸運，沒有可以去歧視他人的優勢，只有默默承受被歧視的痛苦。

有些極端宗教人士認為，按聖經的教導，一男一女才可結合，同性戀是違反聖經的教誨，所以理直氣壯的譴責同性戀行為。他們忽略了聖經作為歷史文獻的基本背景，舊約聖經大部份是以預言體寫成，並非事實的描述，是鑒於兩千多年前猶太的社會環境和有限的科學知識，給予人們基本及具權威性的行為規範。然而，新約聖經卻對少數人的平等權利作出了補充，耶穌在講述義人與君王的故事時說：「凡你們對我這些最小兄弟中的一個所做的，就是對我做的！」（瑪竇福音25 : 40）這是聖經對「反歧視」最明確的闡述，耶穌說的「最小兄弟」就是受壓迫的小眾。

每一個人都應該有良知和同理心，以往對少數人的誤解，可能是基於對科學的無知。現在還找各種藉口來歧視他人的人，在文明社會已難以立足。香港平等機會委員會前主席周一嶽醫生也曾提出考慮立法保障小眾權益，可惜由於未達社會共識，政府遲遲未有具體行動。最近，某建制議員還高調發表歧視言論，尖酸刻薄，罔顧科學，令人沮喪！政府實在責無旁貸，必須盡快採取行動，雙管齊下，宣傳教育和立法規管，為下一代締造更和諧和公平的社會環境。

2021年7月20日

_________________________
*性別的基本屬性包括 (1) 生物性別、(2) 自我性別認同、和 (3) 性取向。
(1) 生物性別是「男」的，編碼為「0」；「女」的為「1」。
(2) 自我性別認同是「男」的，編碼為「0」；「女」的為「1」。
(3) 性取向是喜歡「女」的，編碼為「0」；「男」的為「1」。如果以三種屬性作編碼分類，可能性是 000，001，010，011，100，101，110，111，共8種。最常見的「男」性是 000，而最常見的「女」性是 111。 Gay 是 001， 010，011 的統稱，而 lesbian 是 101，110，100 的統稱。由於自我認同不能從外表看出來，導致性取向可能出現對男和女都同感興趣，如果把 bisexual 分開編碼，性別組合就多了8種，即共16種。

The Inefficient Court

The first trial under the Beijing's imposed national security law has attracted overwhelming attention of the city. Today is the fourteenth day of the on-going trial. Discussions of the transcriptions have appeared in online media. The lengthy debates between the prosecutor and the expert witnesses have been most educational, and in a way quite entertaining*. The focus has been the meaning of the slogan "Liberate HK, revolution of our times" and its relation with separatism or independence, which is crucial to establishing the intention of the defendant in "inciting others to overthrow the regime", a speech crime allegedly committed by the 24-year-old suspect who carried a flag with the slogan in public. The world heard how the two professors analyzed the words in multi-dimensional contexts involving Chinese history, world history, linguistics, social science, media and communications, and even psychology. And the courtroom became a classroom where the professor explained to students (the humble judges, counsels, and spectators) the statistical concept of 'correlation coefficient' and how it was used to assess the correlation between the slogan and separatism.

Hong Kong is still lucky, having its court open and allowing debates to be heard by the public. Although conviction seems likely, based on the way this Beijing imposed 'law' is written, members of the public could still follow the trial and make their own judgement on this speech crime.

Very soon, the government will become impatient watching such trials and being embarrassed by the prosecutor's lack of better logic. When it has come to a point where this British style common law practice is no longer tolerable to Beijing or simply not efficient enough to achieve a 99% conviction rate, trials in Hong Kong will rapidly adopt the more efficient Chinese way: suspects will be arrested, denied bail by default, locked up, treated (in ways nobody knows exactly what happens), and made to publish an open confession admitting all alleged offences. Courts won't conduct open trials but claim to act according to the law. Of course, everything complies with the law. Members of the public would only need to be informed of the verdict.

Hong Kong will be ruled according to the law (依法辦事), though not necessarily abiding by the rule of law（法治).

July 15, 2021

______________________
*第 14 日審訊　辯方專家證人李立峯繼續作供
**選櫻桃的人 – 譚蕙芸

Who should get vaccinated first?

Vaccination no doubt creates hope for a rapid recovery of our severely impacted economy and resumption of normal life from the long painful fight against the pandemic. The questions that concern most of us are which vaccine is more effective and whether the side effects are tolerable. Moreover, of greater interest to the policymakers is who should get vaccinated first, and which order of priority would result in the shortest time to herd immunity and/or the use of minimum resources. The point is that we don't have to vaccinate the weak or more vulnerable groups in order to protect them, but rather to vaccinate the spreaders in the community and hence protect the entire community. An elderly person could safely live in her nursing home if there were no infected caretakers or visitors!

In February 2021, Hong Kong government began offering free vaccine to the more vulnerable groups, including the elderly, medical and healthcare workers, and then teachers, taxi drivers, restaurant workers, etc., the rationale being the need for protection. However, taking a more scientific approach, the entire community is actually a network of people. Each individual has his or her own contacts. Some have more and some have less. An elderly person living in a nursing home under intermediate care would typically meet with three or four people (mostly caretakers or a couple of family visitors) daily. On the other hand, a cashier working in a convenience store could be in contact with hundreds of customers per day. In terms of the likelihood of spreading the virus, people having more contacts (technically called "degree" in a network) should more likely be the key spreaders.

A more effective approach may be to classify different groups according to the statistical average of the contact links per day. For instance, a taxi driver carries an average of 300 passengers a day; a restaurant waiter serves an average of 100 patrons a day; a teacher interacts with 50 students a day; and so on. Then, if we prioritize our order of vaccinating different groups in our community according to the average contact number of the groups, we should theoretically reach the nerd immunity state much quicker.

This is a research topic worth studying!

March 22, 2021

英式優雅

Harry 皇子和 Meghan 皇妃在 Oprah Winfrey 的一個電視訪問中，大說英國皇室的不是，言之鑿鑿，指控皇室成員種族歧視。英美媒體廣泛報導，網民加鹽加醋，煽動仇視皇室情緒，若處理不當，可釀成憲制危機。 事態嚴重，女皇也急忙發表聲明反駁，短短六十一字，優雅得體，但棉裡藏針，訓示兩個不肖子孫勿再造謠生事，毀皇室清譽。

女皇淡然一句「 recollections may vary」（記憶也許存在出入），彷彿指著 Harry 和 Meghan 說「你兩條友仔咪亂噏廿四」；然後再溫馨提醒他們這些家事「將 (應) 在家裡私下處理」（will be addressed by the family privately），也就是跟他們說「有嘢就返來講，唔好喺外面唱我」。英式英語之強乃在於器量的展現。雖然給 Harry 和 Meghan 公開罵了兩小時，身為他們祖母的英女皇還在聲明開端代表皇室「對他們過去幾年面對的挑戰表示痛心」(The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan.)，最後還說「Harry 和 Meghan 永遠是她至愛的家人」(will always be much loved family members.)，如此溫文大方，令人佩服！

若以當今中國特色語言來表達，Harry 和 Meghan 必定是「受外 (美) 國勢力操控惡意中傷皇室」，接受「別有用心的媒體訪問」，並「嚴重傷害英國人的人民感情」，英國全體人民必定「堅決反對」，要求 Harry 和 Meghan 「立刻停止抹黑以女皇為核心的英國皇室的錯誤行為」，英國將「追究到底」，要他們「付出沈重代價」，英國政府將保證「這些反英圖謀不會得逞」。

單憑表達不滿時所用的語言，可以反映一個人 (國家) 的器量和自信（也許說話的實際對象有異）， 同時也是軟實力的一種體現。英式英文，對比當今中國特色的中文，高下立見。

2021年3月18日