Maria Montessori Famous Italian educator Founder of the great Montessori method Son didn't get into college

Here’s what I saw in the group today: A: I’ve bought into $V2EX at the top. B: You bought the memes from the shit forum too? C: Even in the shit forum, it’s still better than those people in the crypto circle. @Crypto circle folks, your ecological niche isn’t very high, huh?

Let me see who liked my post again. Oh, it's Miss Reina! 👍👍👍

Today is the beginning of autumn, and I will go downstairs soon to get a cup of milk tea. The first cup of milk tea in autumn.

As a result 🐢, after the guy poked such a big hornet's nest, he couldn't speak anymore. So 🐢, so 🐢.

Online arguments still require people to take sides. I secretly rejoice that if someone argues with me in the future, I can go to the group and rally support. After all, there are over ten thousand members. Unfortunately, I took a look at the group's activity level. My heart sank.

It's done, the Death Star has arrived, and Earth is doomed.

No quality, no quality, I admit I have no quality. If you like more quality, I suggest you buy an electric guitar. There are 24 frets.

In Guo Donglin's skit, he once said, "Using lies to verify lies will only yield a new lie." When I saw this regulation filled with Chinese-style black humor, what immediately came to my mind was, "Using formalism to govern formalism will only produce a new model of formalism." This regulation attempts to solve the chronic issues within a system that heavily relies on procedures, hierarchy, and power by employing the most familiar method of the system—establishing stricter rules. This itself constitutes a huge paradox: to unlock the shackles already on us, we have designed a more intricate lock. The document is limited to 5,000 words, meetings are compressed to 1 hour, and inspections are reduced to 1 item. Each cold number precisely targets the external manifestations of formalism. It perfectly answers the technical question of "how to prove to superiors that we have reduced burdens," yet it avoids discussing the core issue of "how the real burdens at the grassroots level are generated." Predictably, the result is to cover an old set of procedures and indicators with a new set. In order to prove to superiors that they are effectively "anti-formalism," grassroots must exert all their energy to comply with this new set of formalistic standards. Isn't this just replacing an old sack on a donkey's back with a brand new sack labeled "burden reduction"? The burden remains unchanged. The root cause of formalism is deeply embedded in the power structure of "responsibility only to superiors" and a distorted view of performance. As long as the evaluation system for government staff remains a "top-down" performance assessment rather than a "bottom-up" measure of public satisfaction, the motivation for lower-level departments and personnel to "perform upwards" will never run dry. This grand burden reduction campaign, while possibly the most pragmatic attempt within the existing framework, is characterized by its "clear purpose, absurd process, and unknown results," which will inevitably become the most humble and ridiculous footnote in our party's self-reform.

The short dagger in my hand can at most be considered a knife. But you are different. These few of yours are real swords.