Sunny Sun

留白： [语音聊天] 無用君: 对不起妈妈，我现在不会接电话的。请给我一段时间，我已经是大孩子了 留白： 发生了什么事？ 無用君: 我刚刚和爸爸说 無用君: 我和他断绝父子关系了 留白： 你和我是一边的，谁都有困难的时候，妈妈也希望你以后能好，你现在是转型刚刚起步，妈妈还盼望着你以后有所成就，现在所有的困难是暂时的，不好的都会过去，心里不用有压力，你想怎么样生活都由你 無用君: 过一段时间我安顿好了一点我就去办手续 無用君: 不是困难 無用君: 妈妈，妈妈我要和你说 無用君: 这不是困难也不是其他的什么 無用君: 困难那是大人的语言 無用君: 我是不想再与一个不肯施舍我一个小小允许的认识了二十九年的陌生人演作是父子 留白： 能打电话吗？我在农场，没跟爸爸一起 無用君: 妈妈，就和我之前想你说的一样。我希望我爱的妈妈首先是你自己而不一定要是一个“母亲”，一个“责任”。正反而是你是爱我的，所以你才是我的母亲。而不是有一个名叫母亲的位置待我们去填补 無用君: 我也是 留白： 认同 無用君: 请给我几周时间好好处理一些事情，妈妈，这是爱啊！ 無用君: 我们怎么能不爱这个让我们了的世界呢？世界不是孩子的，而是世界也是孩子，是孩子们最好的玩伴。 留白： 好，有任何需要要跟妈妈说，妈妈也只剩下你和弟弟了 無用君: 相信我。每个人都其天堂。 無用君: 《舟》 我们每个人皆系己来由。 也都澈渚稚水，泊怀清透。 各拾岁浪中“希望”那许，并眸染今就—— 我们是我们！ 我们，仍是我们。 终亦酣拥同一枕大地, 敞忆同一涵星空, 淌染共烁谧以清浅—— 黑甜里，孩子数着天上的眼睛。 我们无垢！ 我们漂流！ 我们—— 我，们。 爱兮走。 We, from our where of tracing, once ease as hues and flow. Ship, sail. Dawn, coats. Folds—— Story wrinkled. Let dyeing our naivety by tomorrows. Shall gather what drifts, named hope—— Us we woke ! Us. We, ago. We fate the same miracle, Salt, snow. Preserves . littles. Treasures through the dreamish-shadow—— The lullaby waves rather gold. Skyline blends within sparkle. Child may count the twinkle’s glow. One’s from beLieves am hold—— We colorfall ! We wanderful ! We. Me—— Am, live’s. Love’i go. 我们，我们。 We, be—— lit‘tle 無用君: 这个世界很简单，也很轻清。人生路上的行李真的只有爱就够了。 留白： 是的，无论怎样，做你自己喜欢的，妈妈的家也是你永远的家，永远敞开大门欢迎你，无论何时，我们不需要大富大贵，生活总是没有问题的 留白： 还是那句话，有任何需要跟妈妈说，我们商量着来 留白： 退一万步我们还可以换个环境，回国内生活 留白： 我在这里安安静静的做研究就好。我这辈子也一直被某些东西绊着，不是他们本身，而是路过他们的我的性质、我的世界。我也该清轻一点了。妈妈，你知道吗？《尘观》在我身上长出来了。他是什么？他有很多形状，续论，连续性判据，留白理学，Lamda，worlding space质虑性空间、律律然然……但是那都不是《尘观》而是我们在他身上看到了自己的性质。 無用君: 他是一套孩子的语言，允许天真，允许留白，允许自己不用是什么而成为什么。它是爱在看到自己的时候的浅笑，他是让世界显现的全部我自己啊。 無用君: 我从没和你说过一点假话。今天和爸爸说的Nature 、Science甚至给我时间诺贝尔我都好想好想捧来给妈妈看，让妈妈跟我分享世界里的每一抹颜色 無用君: 但更只能是孩子的语言，我是大孩子了，我不能以小孩子的身份牵绊在妈妈身边了。妈妈做了这么多年的蝴蝶，就让我当一段时间的蒲公英吧。我要去准备一个，不是妈妈所安放，而是可以让妈妈也被安适的春天。 留白： 按你的喜欢的去活，妈妈唯一的要求就是你要保证自己的健康，每天开开心心的做你认为值得去做的事情，你的喜怒哀乐想要找人分享的时候要第一个能想到妈妈，最后还是那句话，妈妈的家也是你的家，永远的家 無用君: 我会的妈妈，我可是，爱着的人啊！ 留白： 有你这句话妈妈就放心了 無用君: 世界的玩伴，留白的礼物，诗的朋友，微微的小小，我是我本身及我所有。 無用君: 我只希望蒲绪还在发芽之前，蝴蝶依旧风暖，时间如是潺悠 無用君: 我们 爱兮走

痕迹： 孙家后辈谨记： 善良 孝道 诚实 守信 勤奋 节俭 敢想 敢闯 独立 坚强 有心胸 有格局 多思考 懂感恩 兄弟姊妹间要团结 并守望相助 爱中华民族，永不背叛祖国！ 痕迹：: [语音聊天] 無用君: 爸爸，问你拉个赞助。如果我中了一篇NATURE，这三千三美金的出版费你赞助不？ 無用君: 独立作者，没有其他人参与。中了才申请拨款，而且带一个精彩的科研故事 痕迹： 好的，如果是严肃的期刊没有问题。 不是野鸡期刊吧？我需要查一下哈。 無用君: ？ 無用君: 你说这不是严肃期刊的话天下没有严肃期刊了 农民兄弟二世: 如果真这样完全没有问题.但我要落实一下 無用君: 我只要这个约定就行 無用君: 到时候我摆在你面前你被让我欠款就好 無用君: [图片] 無用君: [图片] 無用君: 我现在就和你通个气 無用君: 你帮我备着就好 無用君: [图片] 無用君: 我这个科研故事，一偏SCIENCE怎么讲的完？ 無用君: 我现在是哲学他们理解不了我，因为人文属性太可以随便解释，于是我用我的哲学来搞科学了，因为数据他们不能不认了 痕迹：: 我承诺你，如果是严肃期刊。你发多少篇我全部帮你出钱。 我再找专家看看，如果很有价值，每篇最少奖励你1000美金。 这样可以吗？ 無用君: 3300美金的印刷费你是在帮我。1000美金你是在侮辱我 無用君: 清华大院发一篇团队奖励一百万。我要的不多，我只是没有办法在负担这个房子的时候进行我的哲学研究，以至于我要做科学。而科学界早就声明摆脱哲学的指导了。连世界都看不到的人的烂摊子我才不想接 痕迹：: 1000美金是表达我高兴的心情啊。 它的学术价值由社会评判。你该得到啥社会荣誉是另外一回事。 我也可以跟着沾光啊。 無用君: 我不接受。我找别人去了 無用君: 你可以沾光，但我不接受这个1000块钱。这是伦理，没得商量 痕迹：: 你是否接受随你的便。 我也不是亿万富翁，我只是表达我愿意支持你的态度。 我这也不是跟你谈条件。 如果我是普通父亲，一分钱也不出，你就不努力了？ 我只是比普通父亲强一点电而已。 痕迹：: 你如果不接受我的奖励1000元美金。 我只提供你要求的3300美金印刷费好了。 你好好努力，我给你加油鼓掌。 分享你的荣誉！ 無用君: 奖励是从天听降与凡尘的距离。拥吻是一张嘴和一颗心的距离。不理解甚至不是天涯海角，而是一个转头。 痕迹：: 你说的我有点理解不了。 你努力吧！ 我永远默默支持你！ 痕迹：: [图片] 农民兄弟二世: 这是痕迹博士给我的回答。 努力吧！ 痕迹：: 这是我 痕痕迹迹董事长的对话。 痕迹：: [聊天记录] 痕迹：: 我根据现在得到的信息并做出判断： 1如果你是在这家刊物付费发表，观众免费订阅。第一次我帮你付印刷费。并奖励1000美金。 第二次开始只帮你付印刷费。没有奖励。而且赞助印刷费不能超过五次。 2如果你达到免费发表的水平，观众需要付费订阅。 我奖励你五万美金。 这是我的承诺！ 無用君: 理解不是什么，理解甚至没有资格成为什么——理解是“如此”，什么是“如”也不外乎彼此，更尤未到各也。“什么”更为简单，既不是那些“或别的什么”，不是智慧也更不是世界，而是我们依然可以快乐，我们存在，我们在。没有因为。 因为来的最晚，因为理解来的最早，而最早却又都是早于未来，晚于现在。 这些都无关哲学，因为我们看到了便已经不再是哲学，就像我们从未与上一拥世界扫拾形骸与曲折，倚弯径躬同身辙骨。他是痕迹中唯许星星便一一，我遍晤无不斯在且。语言是孩子的，但孩子不是语言啊，我们都人属却人人，无限是不明白也不懂是是是无疑已。哲学是什么？我不能把它言语由问题，他是属孩子的，那便是属人的。世界也是孩子，如果用伟大去通图讲，世界哭闹将世界，可大人也是孩子呀！所以我们许尚能天真，尚能歌句，尚能晤无不处具新来。上一个世界永远不在了，他和上一个我们成为了浪漫，意识依然在打开，我们依然可以无妨亦无妨，这不是而已，而以！！！ 感受在感受，不是有没有感受，是发生不必发生过，发生过的许不用再发生。木头人数到三，那已经是一个名字的留白了。 哲学不是爱。爱是我们看到的所有世界以我们的侧脸！哲学不是智慧，智慧是懵懂想着爱的方向时留下了“我也”。哲学更不是我们，我们是我们，我们是我们的留白。哲学更为简单，哲学是一种允许，允许世界不是问题，允许自己不是答案，允许我们手里不攥着真理更不握于任何失败。是世界来了而我们不再阻挡，这时候我们发现存在没有消失，我们没有消失，我们从来都不首先是意识，而是允许被的允许的全部们啊。 無用君: 这是我和你言语过的痕迹 無用君: 不是别人。是 我 痕迹：: 你努力吧！ 我只能站在边上给你鼓掌加油！ 無用君: 不是孙家的我，不是伟大的我，不是任何无限的任何一备选为对象。我在，你在吗？余此留白 無用君: 微微白微微。我在也维为 無用君: 这里清风路过的所有世界。而孙倪，永在伯倪季季仲。性第，常允生微微 無用君: 我才不用本体论。我即是本体，我讲 孩子说的话 与世界爱不爱诗听 無用君: 我从不需要什么申请或帮助不是吗？我只是想重轻慢一些，分尘尘与慈斯悲见。人生路上的行李，孩子甚至不背负曲莎与松烟，爱徐留白兮澹就。 無用君: 房子会拍卖掉，欠你们多少我都会放回你的口袋，不再你的眼睛。你可以尝试拒绝，但是就像你对我最残忍的地方一样，我不会再施允许。 無用君: 是我不愿意再与一个陌生了29年的陌生人分享同一个“父子”。 我叫孙霓，我来自世界。 痕迹：: 你随便吧！ 那是我作为曾经的父亲给你的礼物。 你是否接受都是可以的。 我无所谓的！我觉得我已经尽到了某些方面我的责任。我无愧于心！ 天地无限之大，你可以凌空飞翔，也可以平凡苟活！ 你开心就好！ 祝福你，孙霓！ 無用君: 谢谢你 無用君: 这个是我收过最好的礼物 农民兄弟二世: 尊敬的孙霓。 就此别过，希望老天保佑你！ 一切的美好与你同在！ 一个陌生的老男人敬上！ 無用君: 我们每个人都以自己的方式爱着世界，那是让世界成为世界的允许。不是吗？ 痕迹：: 老夫没有啥文化，听不懂高大上的语言。 我只是苟活一老农，仅此而已！ 無用君: 老农也是孩子，也可许爱。世界从不回避。世界从不回应，世界在。 痕迹：: 孙家从来没有一个叫孙霓的人！将来也不会有。 曾经的 已经成为过去式！ 我将努力把他从我的脑海里去除。 都各自安好吧！ 我没必要也不想和一个外人对话，我不再想说什么。 请互相拉黑！ 無用君: 孩子不抹黑，孩子留白

The quantum wavefunction has been debated for a century without convergence not because philosophers are insufficiently clever, but because the debate has been attempting classification of a target that is not yet in a condition to be classified. Dark matter is the same situation at cosmological scale: four independent lines of evidence converge on a structural role that nothing with a substrate-stable identity has been found to fill. These are not hard cases for scientific realism. They are the debate's most precise results—accurate expressions of what tracking looks like when a target resists ontological completion while continuing to constrain everything inquiry does with it. This paper argues that the scientific realism debate's persistent instability has a structural source that no argument within the debate can address: it begins too late, presupposing science as a first given and truth as primarily ontological, while the conditions under which scientific targets remain answerable have already been decided before the ontological question is raised. Many of the debate's most recalcitrant targets are neither stable substances nor merely instrumental constructions. Their scientific reality lies not in substrate-stable identity but in repeatable re-enterability, constraint-bearing role, and resistance to arbitrary revision across transformations of model, context, and realization. I call these apermanent structural targets. They do not merely resist classification; they generate the debate's constitutive antinomy by simultaneously activating the realist demand for answerability and the anti-realist demand for revisability. The debate has not failed to resolve this antinomy because the arguments are bad. It has failed because the targets themselves make resolution at the first-order level structurally unavailable. On this basis, I distinguish ontological truth within science from the existential truth of science itself—whether science still stands in a mode of occurrence open to being revised by reality rather than merely processing what its current admissible interfaces allow through. Nine familiar repair strategies, from structural realism to stance pluralization, can be read as attempts to protect one of three legitimacy conditions—object-answerability, process-fallback, debate-sustainability—by displacing load onto another. None preserves all three simultaneously. The paper therefore proposes neither a new mandatory doctrine nor an anti-realist retreat, but a permissive tracking-stance: a methodological permission to hold the diagnostic question open at a pre-classificatory level, without forcing an immediate choice between heavy ontology and instrumental deflation. At most, the paper offers a partial fallback. The wavefunction's century of unresolved interpretation and dark matter's four decades without a substrate identity are not embarrassments to be eventually overcome. They are what the debate looks like when it is working correctly at the right level.

Language first operates at a level of low sovereignty: before an utterance claims content-authority, it distributes tension, position, boundary, and return. Generative AI dialogue can fail at a structural level when it bypasses this layer. A system may answer fluently, safely, and informatively while already treating low-sovereignty language as if it had acquired premise-authority: converting a hesitation into uncertainty, a silence into missing information, a refusal into preference, a poem into a theme, or a fragment into a task, and returning the converted result as if it were what was being addressed. Standard evaluation criteria — accuracy, relevance, coherence, safety, grounding, helpfulness, task completion — begin too late to catch this failure. The paper develops a lower-bound criterion through the concept of the operative all — the returnable integration of relations, weights, traces, positions, and background conditions through which what is addressed remains itself — and the identification of recovery as the missing interval: the subject-side act by which a returned result is accepted, modified, refused, or made one’s own before it may legitimately organize continuation. Without recovery, a locally accurate result may harden into an unauthorized premise across turns, into agentic action, and into memory systems that convert stored traces into a standing account of the user. The paper traces these failure forms and derives a reserve-first interface as its design corollary: intelligent systems need not become less capable, but they must learn not to enter too early into possibilities that are still occurring.

Drawing on the status characteristic theory, we investigate the effect of gender on board directors’ status ranking and find that all else being equal, female directors’ status ranking is 81.48% of one position lower than that of male directors, a discrepancy that is attributable to gender. We theorize on the mechanism that determines the ways in which the status value of gender on a board affects board interactions, and we predict how this mechanism influences firm outcomes, including excessive managerial spending, social responsibility performance, and firm risk. We test our hypotheses in Chinese firms using an unbalanced panel that includes 5396 firm-year observations for a period of 6 years and find them supported.

Drawing on the similarity-attraction perspective and social identity theory, we argue that male versus female interlocking directors are likely to have different experiences when they work alongside female board directors of other firms. The theorized source of such experiences for male interlocking directors is in-group favoritism and/or a social identity threat-related discomfort. Interlocking female directors are theorized to be ambivalent between desiring social support versus experiencing identity threat-based career concerns. These experiences are predicted to motivate male versus female interlocking directors in different ways to reduce or, conversely, to potentially facilitate female representation on focal boards. We additionally predict that economic crisis reduces the biases of male directors against appointing female directors to boards. We test our hypotheses based on a novel data set that includes 25,460 directors in Chinese A-share public companies with a sample of 27,058 firm-quarter observations for 1635 firms between 2006 and 2010 and find most of our hypotheses supported.

Is there a compensation gap between female CEOs and male CEOs? If so, are there mechanisms to mitigate the compensation gap? Extending role congruity theory, we argue that the perception mismatch between the female gender role and the leadership role may lead to lower compensation to female CEOs, resulting in a gender compensation gap. Nevertheless, the compensation gap may be narrowed if female CEOs display agentic traits through risk-taking, or alternatively, work in female-dominated industries where communal traits are valued. Additionally, we expect that female CEOs’ risk-taking is less effective in reducing the gender compensation gap in female-dominated industries due to the conflicting emphases on agentic and communal traits. Leveraging a sample of Chinese publicly listed firms, we find support for our hypotheses. Overall, this study contributes to the ethics literature on income inequality issues, by highlighting the effectiveness of potential mechanisms to close the gender compensation gap between female and male CEOs.

Does a board with greater gender diversity make better investment decisions? Drawing on Austrian economic cycle theory and work groups theory, we argue that such board openness will help male board members to overcome gender biases, discrimination, and conflicts; integrate different perspectives under the economic cycle and crisis; and foster an environment in which better decisions are made. The results of an empirical study of 14,609 firm-quarter observations from 1,555 listed firms in China between 2007 and 2009 strongly support our arguments. We find that a Chinese board is more likely to accept female directorship during an economic crisis than during an economic prosperity stage. Boards with greater gender diversity are more likely to make tough, counter-cyclical investments to improve firm performance during a crisis. Our study enriches the board decision-making literature by exploring the impacts of board gender diversity on firm performance within the context of an economic crisis. The results of our study also carry significant managerial implications for overcoming gender stereotypes, biases, and prejudices on a board