關於 how could you leave us 中文 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

🌻台灣時間昨天(08/08)是父親節. 在這邊祝各位父親佳節愉快. 也希望大家珍惜與家人相處的時光. 對家人表達愛意, 也不需要特別等到這一天.

🌻美國生活
Lockdown後, 請小心腰圍..........

前幾天去了醫院. 醫生也說, 疫情後, 她大約有1/4的孩童客戶是過重(還是肥胖). 也有些孩子還得了憂鬱症.

這篇文章介紹了跟減重有關的公司:
3 Stocks to Buy That Should Get a Boost From Pandemic-Driven Consumer Weight Gain
https://finance.yahoo.com/m/4cde2823-fb4e-3438-98dc-db880586fad6/3-stocks-to-buy-that-should.html

🌻18位共和黨議員倒戈　1.2兆美元基建案參院程序表決過關
https://www.bcc.com.tw/newsView.6879676

🌻"Guidance (財測) is the product of both operational insight (營運的洞悉) and expectation management(預期的管理)."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-long-can-bmw-resist-teslas-pull-11628005314

上面那句話說的挺好. 財測是高層對未來營運做預估的一種方法. 之前放掉一家公司, 就是因為公司的營收預估一直做得不好, 加上也還有比它更好的公司.

🌻上週做的功課與閱讀
上週花比較多的時間在看公司的財報結果. 功課反而有些亂掉了. 不過還是整理了一下看到的一些資訊:
https://makingsenseofusastocks.blogspot.com/2021/08/blog-post.html

🌻PayPal(PYPL)Q3 2021財報的電話會議內容已經整理好:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N64aPdl4fVybdNL5F1tFsj_YKWBnywaC/view?usp=sharing

🌻前幾天分享了一些基金經理人挑股的邏輯: 看趨勢, 找產業insight, 看商業模式, 把公司拿來跟產業其他對手相比, 看飛輪效應, 看高層&執行力. 有興趣的可以看看.

🌻新冠疫情反撲導致好萊塢影視製作中斷
https://on.wsj.com/3ClUHCx
中文稿中並沒有提到的是, 演藝圈其實跟餐飲業很像, 是人與人間需要近距離相處的產業.
"Hollywood movie and TV sets differ from typical office environments as people are often forced to work in close proximity with one another. Masks and social distancing are sometimes unrealistic, and cast and crew members frequently enter and leave filming locations."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/hollywood-productions-halted-as-covid-19-emerges-on-sets-again-11627551001

🌻美國這幾天目前最紅的亞裔Sunisa Lee.......苗族人(Hmong).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Qn49CBmd9M

中西部真的挺多. 都有在Wisonsin, Minnesota碰到過.

苗族人定居美國的故事: https://bit.ly/3yxYA50
"大批苗族人在70年代以難民身份來美定居，至今美國苗族人口約有26萬。他們集中在美國中西部地區生活，明尼蘇達州正是 苗族社群的最大聚居地，人口逾6.6萬人，蘇妮莎正是出生於該州首府聖保羅巿（Saint Paul）。蘇妮莎的父母正是來美的難民之一，然而雖然成功逃避戰亂，但至今六成美國苗族人屬於低收入階層，超過四分一更屬貧窮階層。"

The only thing our parents knew was to push us to go to school, get an education and go to college. They never thought that us as Asians could do any extracurricular activities without being judged,” said Amy Vang, owner of Little Luxuries Nail Lounge, where Lee got her nails done ahead of the Olympics. “That’s why Suni’s story has touched so many people…It has opened eyes in the Hmong community, to parents, that you can support your children in whatever they want to do and they can become successful.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/sunisa-lee-tokyo-olympics-nails-11627737076

🌻Apple TV+的"Schmigadoon"這部片挺不錯........有興趣的話可以看看(尤其是喜歡歌舞劇的讀者).
劇裡面的這首歌我也很喜歡. 與大家分享.
"With All of Your Heart"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39UCSfQwO8E

Pictures: Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore; 本周發表財報的公司一覽表

一封給國家地理頻道「Dog: Impossible」節目負責人的公開信:

An open letter to the leadership team of Nat Geo Wild Dog Impossible:

Translate: Yu-Hwa Su 翻譯: 蘇昱華
Proof: Yen Ke 校對: 葛雁

The International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants (IAABC) applauds National Geographic’s mission to offer intelligent, relevant and captivating non-fiction entertainment. This is a crucial objective, especially as an introduction to children and viewers largely relying on television for their scientific information.
國際動物行為諮詢師協會（IAABC）對於國家地理頻道致力於提供電視觀眾正確知識與科學內容表示讚賞。這是一個非常重要的目標，特別是對依賴電視得到這些知識的兒童與其他觀眾們來說。

However, your stated mission is in direct conflict with your show Dog: Impossible. In fact, the irresponsible treatment of the dogs and people on this show flies in the face of all best practices in animal training and behavior. Rather than promoting science and scientifically-proven methodology, Dog: Impossible sacrifices learning science for more dramatic television.
然而，貴頻道所提供的節目「Dog: Impossible」卻與貴頻道「提供正確的科學知識」的一貫立場衝突。節目中對犬隻以及飼主的不負責處理方式與應有的動物訓練及行為操作的準則相違背。「Dog: Impossible」並沒有提倡科學以及經科學驗證的方法，這節目犧牲了對科學的學習，轉而追求吸睛的電視節目效果。

Matt Beisner appears to have no credentials or education in training and behavior, yet he refers to himself as a behaviorist. His claim that “energy is the one language that every animal on the planet speaks” makes clear he is not one.
Matt Beisner並沒有動物訓練或行為學的相關學習經歷與證照，卻宣稱自己是一位行為學家。從他的主張：「能量是地球上所有動物都會使用的共通語言」，便能明白他並不是行為學家。

His statement, “You don’t need tricks, you don’t need treats, you don’t need force,” shows just how unaware of his own actions he is. His misuse of scientific terminology leads viewers to believe they are learning demonstrated, safe and accepted strategies in helping their dogs. In fact, Mr. Beisner is forcing these dogs from start to finish of each episode. His own “tricks” are that of over-stressing dogs until they’re in a state referred to in psychology and science as “learned helplessness.”
他主張「你不需要技巧、零食、或蠻力 (去訓練狗)」，這顯示出他對於自己的所做所為一無所知。他對科學術語的濫用也會誤導觀眾，讓觀眾以為他們正在學習經證實有效而且安全可接受的方法來幫助狗狗。但這位訓練師在每一集節目上從頭到尾都是在逼迫這些狗，而他所擁有的「技巧」，就是讓狗進入過度緊迫的狀態，直到牠們進入心理學和科學上所指的「習得無助」（learned helplessness）狀態。

Learned helplessness occurs when a subject endures repeated aversive stimuli beyond their control. Originally thought to show a subject's acceptance of their powerlessness, for more than half a century it’s been known instead to be the emotional “shutting down” of the subject. Anxiety, clinical depression, and related mental illnesses are common consequences of this technique in humans.
「習得無助」發生在動物沒有任何控制權，且重複地被施加嫌惡刺激的時候。最初，人們認為習得無助狀態意味著動物「接受」了自身無法改變、無能為力的情形，超過半個世紀以來，人們認為這是動物情緒「關機（shutting down）」的表現。在人類身上，習得無助的常見結果包含焦慮、憂鬱症、以及相關的心理疾病。

Allow us to note some aspects of the trailer and his shows, but first, to point out a few well-documented and commonly understood aspects of dog behavior so that we may better make our points understood.
在我們解釋為何我們認為此節目的預告片與內容不適當之前，我們希望先闡述一些正確的犬隻行為常識，以便您能更理解我們的觀點。

Canine body language indicating stress and severe stress:
顯示出壓力以及嚴重緊迫的犬隻肢體語言：

Compressed bodies
Dry, raspy panting
Wide, open eyes with dilated pupils
Heavy drooling
“Whipping” head and body back, pushing off a handler in order to get away
Growling
Fighting
Biting
縮緊身體
急促的喘氣
睜大雙眼、散瞳
大量流口水
甩頭、用前爪推抱著狗的人以退後、試圖掙脫
低吼
打架
開咬

Eleven seconds into the trailer, Mr. Beisner rubs his hands together, smiling, and says, “This is going to be gnarly.” All professionals know from that statement what the series will spotlight: A poorly (if at all) educated non-professional pushing dogs way beyond therapeutic limits, in the name of “results.”
在預告片11秒的地方，Beisner先生搓手並笑著說「等一下會很精采喔」。所有專業人士都知道這句話代表這個節目的亮點將會是：一名缺乏適當教育的訓練師，逼迫狗到超過其能承受的極限，並把這樣的結果稱為是良好的改善。

Flooding, the term for inundating a subject with their fears, phobias and triggers, is ethically questionable at best, cruel and unnecessary, always. There's also a common danger of spontaneous recovery of the phobia. This is because flooding doesn't replace the fear-response with a different response, it just replaces it with no response. “No response” is simply suppression, not cure.
「洪水法」，指的是故意將動物置於恐慌或恐懼的觸發刺激情境，這樣的方法不道德、殘忍、而且沒必要。另外，恐懼的自發性回復（spontaneous recovery）也是洪水法常見的風險，這是因為洪水法並沒有將害怕的反應重新制約成其他不同的情緒行為，它只是讓動物沒有反應。「沒有反應」只是壓抑，動物並沒有因此感到不害怕或恐慌。

Throughout the trailer dogs are flooded with aversive stimuli such as other dogs, people and equipment, something an ethical professional would not, and could not do per any answerable guidelines of animal training and behavior care.
在整個預告片中，狗狗被迫接受各種嫌惡刺激的洪水法訓練，例如其他狗、其他人類和物品，這是具有道德的專業訓練人員不會做的，任何負責任的動物訓練及行為照護準則也不會如此建議。

Systematic desensitization and counterconditioning, gradual exposure to the feared object, and replacement of a negative emotional association with a more pleasant one, are the recommended techniques used to treat such fear and aggression cases, per all legitimate veterinary, training and behavior organizations.
系統性減敏與反制約，也就是逐步與少量的讓狗接觸其本來會害怕的事物，並且將引發的少量負面情緒與其非常喜愛的事物配對給予，是用來處理恐懼及攻擊案例的建議方法，也是每個好的獸醫師、訓練及行為機構會推薦的方法。

Beisner’s statement that “We know at the Zen Yard that dogs help other dogs come out of their shell and face their fear and get past their aggression” isn’t just scientifically unsupportable, his words ring hollow during the very scene playing while he says those words: Beisner restraining one dog, while his co-host pulls a leashed dog to the first in a completely unnatural gesture perhaps intended to either mimic natural dog greeting (it doesn’t) or to flood the heavily drooling dog who is unable to move or get away. The dogs end up in a fight. They have been set up to fail, and the outcome is inevitable.
Beisner宣稱「我們在Zen Yard（他的訓練中心）知道狗會去幫助其他狗融入外界、面對牠們的恐懼並且克服攻擊行為」，這句話不只是缺乏科學支持，在影片中他講出這句話時搭配的畫面，亦表現出他的說詞缺乏支持：Beisner限制了第一隻狗的行動，由節目的共同主持人以牽繩將另一隻狗以一個完全不自然的姿勢拉到第一隻狗身邊，他們可能是在試著模仿狗狗自然的社交打招呼行為（但並不是），或使用洪水法訓練那隻狂流口水（顯示牠很緊張）並且無法逃脫的狗。最終兩隻狗打起來，訓練師製造的這個情境，讓失敗的結果無可避免。

In the trailer, the assistant host, Stefanie DiOrio, states, “Nervousness can easily turn to fear which can lead to aggression.” This is an accurate statement, which is why it’s so confusing that the entire show would be predicated on pushing dogs to the very edge of survivable stress and into predictable aggression, doubling down on the issues that their owners are struggling with.
在預告片中，節目的共同主持人Stefanie DiOrio說「緊張不安很容易變成真正的恐懼，並且導致攻擊行為」，這句話是正確的，但也讓人更加困惑為何整個節目的走向都在將狗推向牠們所能承受壓力的極限、觸發根本可預測的攻擊行為、並使飼主所面對的問題加倍惡化。

We know that the dramatic changes in behavior, from stressed and wildly aggressive to “calm” dogs, make for compelling TV. To an average pet owner it looks like these dogs are making huge improvements. All clients just want their dog to “Stop being aggressive.” However, we also know that behavior suppression is not the same as behavior modification, that a stressed and shut-down dog is a more dangerous animal than one who is actively showing aggression, and that the long-term prognosis of this kind of intervention is poor for both the client and their dog.
我們知道行為上戲劇性的變化，從一隻緊迫且兇猛攻擊的狗轉變成“冷靜”的狗，這個過程代表了高收視率，在不十分了解行為學的飼主眼中看來，這些狗狗似乎有巨大的進步。飼主都只是希望他們的狗「不要再有攻擊性」，然而我們也知道單純抑制攻擊行為的出現，並不是真正的行為改善技術。舉例來說一隻高壓力但看似沒有反應的狗，遠比一隻會表現出攻擊性的狗要危險許多 (譯註: 因為這樣的狗可能會沒有徵兆地開咬)，因此這種抑制攻擊行為的訓練法，以長遠來看對飼主以及狗狗都是有害的。

It is also worth pointing out that, like his predecessor, Mr Beisner’s assessment of cause for much of the issues he’s asked to address is simple, made especially clear in episode 4 where he not only saves a dog, he “saves a marriage:” Women are unable to effectively lead, must be stronger, must change their ways.
另一個值得注意的事是Beisner先生，如同他在同一個頻道的前輩，西薩，對導致問題的原因評估也過於簡化，例如第四集中他聲稱他不只拯救了狗狗，他還「拯救了這段婚姻」，因為女主人無法有效的領導狗狗，因此她必須更堅強，必須改變他們之間的相處模式。

Misogyny, it seems, cures dog behavior problems. Real exploration and explanation regarding the antecedents and consequences around behaviors are ignored in favor of client blaming.
這段貶抑女性的解釋，看起來似乎能改善犬隻的行為問題，然而關於行為問題真正的前因後果卻被指責客戶所取代，並沒有真正的被探討與解釋。

The clients on the show represent thousands of clients throughout the US and beyond with whom we work every day, helping them to help their dogs. Far from being dogs “other people won’t work with,” the dogs on your show are exactly the clients and dogs that IAABC Certified Dog Behavior Consultants, as well as all members of the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists, Certified Applied Animal Behaviorists, and other certified behavior specialists see and successfully work with every day.
節目中所出現的客戶正代表了我們日常工作中所會幫助的人們與他們的狗，呈現的就是我們在美國跟其他國家的上千位客戶。節目中所出現的這些有著行為問題的狗絕對不是「其他訓練師都不想要處理的狗狗」，事實上這些客戶與狗正是IAABC認證的狗行為諮詢師、美國獸醫行為學家、認證的應用動物行為學家或是其他受認證的行為學專家，每天工作的日常。

We do so using the best practices of our field (see https://m.iaabc.org/about/ethics/), adopted by the leading behavior and training organizations, without psychologically or physically harming the animals we work with.
我們在這個領域也使用最嚴謹的訓練師專業道德守則（英文版參見https://m.iaabc.org/about/ethics/，中文版參見https://reurl.cc/72eVkl），這個守則受領先的行為及訓練機構所採用，使訓練師與行為諮詢師在工作時，不對我們經手的動物造成生理或心理上的傷害。

The IAABC urges Nat Geo WILD to stop promoting this public miseducation. The tactics employed in the name of entertainment are unnecessarily harsh and potentially dangerous to the public, and they teach yet another generation of Nat Geo watchers absolutely incorrect and harmful practices.
IAABC呼籲國家地理頻道（Nat Geo WILD）停止傳播此系列誤導公眾的資訊。以娛樂包裝節目的策略對於觀眾是不必要的粗糙而且有潛在風險的，甚至是向頻道的年輕一代觀眾灌輸完全不正確且有害的做法。

It remains a mystery why your network is so intent on harming dogs. After years of Cesar Milan, to now bring in a man equally unskilled, who equates terrified, angry or entrapped dogs to his own addiction history is remarkable. Are we really satisfied conflating ego with compassion, self-focus with an understanding of animal behavior? Is this the “science” your mission stands for?
我們仍然不知為何貴頻道這麼多年來如此堅持持續傷害狗的這些作為。在西薩 (Cesar Milan) 的節目播映多年之後，現在又引進一個同樣缺乏正確訓練技巧，以自身藥物成癮困擾歷史去錯誤的同理恐懼或憤怒的狗的人。我們能接受一個膨脹自我，而非真正擁有同情心、適當自我聚焦、了解動物行為的「專業人士」嗎？這就是貴節目所宣稱的「科學」立場嗎？

The damage Nat Geo is doing to dogs by choosing this type of programming is astounding. We can only assume that the producers are unaware of this, as it’s hard to imagine such harm and cruelty would be deliberate.
國家地理頻道選擇製作這類節目對於狗狗的傷害甚鉅，我們只能假定節目製作人並沒有意識到這點，因為我們難以想像會有人故意去做這樣有害且殘忍的事情。

Would you show a reality program on heart surgery with a photogenic “self-taught” practitioner, simply stating the star was not a doctor before showing him mutilating a real patient?
想問貴節目是否會採用一個上鏡的“自學”外科醫生錄製心臟手術的實境節目，告知觀眾他並非真正的醫生，然後播放他對病患動刀的畫面？

I leave you with the clearest image of suffering and abuse from your trailer: the Aussie, stressed to the breaking point, thick ropes of drool streaming from its mouth, being choked by a slip lead to compensate for the host’s inability to even effectively muzzle a dog. This dog is at the point of collapse. This dog is being tortured, and that is not hysteria. That is an assessment by any educated measure.
作為結尾，我希望指出貴節目預告片中明確顯示出狗狗受苦或受虐的畫面：那隻澳洲牧羊犬已經瀕臨壓力的極限，您可以看到口水掛在其嘴邊 (大量口水為壓力徵兆)，口罩因為沒有確實的配戴而滑脫，導致牠被勒到快要窒息，已在崩潰邊緣。具備專業與適當教育的人員指出，這隻狗因在節目上被虐待而情緒崩潰，並非其本身歇斯底里。

Please stop this cruel and dangerous programming. To do otherwise is to support that self-taught heart surgery and all the consequences it would bring; that this show is currently bringing to families struggling with their dogs.
Professionals refer to Cesar Milan’s influence on dog training as “job security” because so many dogs ruined or made far worse by his teachings are brought to us by well-intentioned, often weeping owners desperate for real help. Often it is too late.
請停止這系列殘酷且危險的節目。否則貴節目就等同於支持前面舉例的自學的心臟外科「醫師」進行手術一樣，這些危險的後果正由觀眾與他們的狗承擔。專業訓犬人士將西薩米蘭對訓犬的影響戲稱為「工作保障」，因為太多飼主使用了他教授的技巧後，狗狗的狀況變得更糟，而哭著迫切尋找真正的協助，此時通常都為時已晚。

We do not want more work due to this same phenomenon.
我們不想要因為這個節目帶來類似影響而接到更多工作。

We’d be happy to provide you with any education and resources you need to inform your producers about what would qualify as responsible, effective, safe and thoughtful work with the same “red zone” dogs you sell so well.
但我們很樂意提供貴頻道任何需要的教育與資源，讓您們的節目製作人對訓犬工作應有的品質有所理解，例如負責、有效、安全，並且理解到對於在節目中出現的這些「危險」犬隻，事實上有更合理的訓練方法。

Thank you for your consideration.
謝謝您的閱讀與理解。

Marjie Alonso
Executive Director, IAABC
For the Board of Directors

Marjie Alonso
IAABC執行長
代表董事會發言

神奇的翻譯幻想魔力

The Magic of Reality: How We Know What’s Really True?
什麼才是真的？：真實世界的神奇魔力
作者： Richard Dawkins
譯者： 黃煜文
繪者： 戴夫．麥金
出版社：大塊文化
出版日期：2012/05/29

這位譯者譯了幾本我感興趣的書，幾年前揭露過他翻譯另一本書（《是邏輯還是鬼扯？》）時的一些誤譯，有些頗爲好笑。著名無神論者、倡導演化論的英國科學家道金斯這本科普好書的翻譯，看來也一樣的不用心（還是無能爲力？），這裡略舉例幾段。

博客來試讀第1-2頁（原文第一章第14-16頁、中譯第12-14頁）

// Back to those dinosaurs. How do we know that they once roamed the Earth? We have never seen them or heard them or had to run away from them. Alas, we don’t have a time machine to show them to us directly. But here we have a different kind of aid to our senses: we have fossils, and we can see them with the naked eye. Fossils don’t run and jump but, because we understand how fossils are formed, they can tell us something of what happened millions of years ago. We understand how water, with minerals dissolved in it, seeps into corpses buried in layers of mud and rock. We understand how the minerals crystallize out of the water and replace the 【materials】 of the corpse, 【atom by atom,】 leaving some trace of the original animal’s form imprinted on the stone. So, although we can’t see dinosaurs directly with our senses, we can work out that they must have existed, using indirect evidence that still ultimately reaches us through our senses: we see and touch the stony traces of ancient life.

讓我們回頭來談談恐龍。我們怎麼知道牠們曾經一度漫遊在這片大地上？我們從未看過或聽過恐龍，也從未因為恐龍出現而四處逃竄。真可惜，我們沒有時光機能讓我們直接看到恐龍。但我們有不同的方法可以協助我們的感官：我們有化石，所以我們可以用肉眼看見「它們」。化石不會跑也不會跳，但我們了解化石是怎麼形成的，我們可以從化石得知數百萬年前發生的事。我們知道溶有礦物質的水分會以什麼方式滲透到埋在泥土與岩石層裡的殘骸中。我們也知道這些礦物質在水分蒸發後會留下結晶，然後取代原來存在於殘骸裡的【礦物質】。它們會【一個原子接著一個原子】把動物原本的形體痕跡滲印在石頭上。所以，雖然我們無法直接用我們的感官看見恐龍，但我們可以推斷恐龍真的存在，這些間接的證據最終還是能被我們的感官感知到：我們可以看到與摸到古代生物留在石頭上的痕跡。//

1a. //We understand how the minerals crystallize out of the water and replace the materials of the corpse, atom by atom, leaving some trace of the original animal’s form imprinted on the stone.
我們也知道這些礦物質在水分蒸發後會留下結晶，然後取代原來存在於殘骸裡的礦物質。它們會一個原子接著一個原子把動物原本的形體痕跡滲印在石頭上。//

「礦物質」取代「礦物質」？原譯把materials看成minerals。

改：這些礦物質在水分蒸發後會留下結晶，取代殘骸裡的物質。

（後記：感謝讀者 @ Michelle Wen〔小說譯者兼資深校稿人〕指出materials的誤譯。）

1b. Atom by atom，從英文的寫法看，應當修飾前句的「取代」(replace)，不是修飾後句的「leave some trace」。

改：這些礦物質在水分蒸發後會留下結晶，一個原子接著一個原子取代殘骸裡的物質，把動物原本形體的些許痕跡滲印在石頭上。

這些錯誤如果看來沒什麼，好戲還在後頭！

// In a different sense, a telescope can work like a kind of time machine. What we see when we look at anything is actually light, and 【light takes time to travel.】 Even when you look at a friend’s face you are seeing them in the past, because the light from their face takes a tiny fraction of a second to travel to your eye. Sound travels much more slowly, which is why you see a firework burst in the sky noticeably earlier than you hear the bang. When you watch a man chopping down a tree in the distance, there is an odd delay in the sound of his axe hitting the tree.

從不同的角度來看，望遠鏡就像時光機。我們看到景物時，我們實際上看到的是光，而【光可以帶著時間旅行。】即使我們看著朋友的臉，我們看見的也是他們以前的臉，因為光從他們臉上到達我們的眼睛需要時間，儘管那是極其短暫的時間。聲音的速度比光慢得多，這是為什麼你會先看到煙火在天空炸開，然後過一陣子才聽到爆炸的聲音。你從遠處看人砍樹，你會發現斧頭砍在樹幹的景象與實際上聽到聲響有一種奇妙的時間差。//

2. 這個錯誤不必多解釋，很爆笑，但非提出來不可：

「光可以帶著時間旅行」，正確意思應該是「光的旅行（穿越空間）需要時間」。takes time （花時間）想像成擬人化的「攜帶時間」，真的很有趣。同一段下一兩句譯者卻又恢復神智，寫出「光從他們臉上到達我們的眼睛需要時間」。

「帶著X旅行」也是一本書名：Umberto Eco有本趣味散文集「帶著鮭魚去旅行」，張定綺譯，好像是從義大利文的英譯版再轉譯成中文。艾柯愛玩語言，那本書翻譯的挑戰很大。

// Are there really aliens in outer space? We’ve never seen or heard them. Are they a part of reality? Nobody knows; 【but we do know what kind of things could one day tell us if they are.】 If ever we got near to an alien, our sense organs 【could tell us about it.】 Perhaps somebody will one day invent a telescope powerful enough to detect life on other planets from here. Or perhaps our radio telescopes will pick up messages that could only have come from an alien intelligence. For reality doesn’t just consist of the things we already know about: it also includes things that exist but that we don’t know about yet - and won’t know about until some future time, perhaps when we have built better instruments to assist our five senses.

外太空真的有外星人嗎？我們從未見過外星人的樣子，也從未聽過外星人的聲音。外星人是現實的一部分嗎？沒有人知道；【可以確定的是，如果外星人真的存在，那麼總有一天我們會知道他們的長相。】如果我們靠近外星人，我們的感官會讓我們知道【外星人長什麼樣子。】或許有一天，人類會發明性能強大的望遠鏡，使我們能從地球觀測到其他行星上的生命。或許我們的電波望遠鏡會偵測到唯有具有智能的外星人才能發出的訊息。現實不只包括我們已經知道的事物：現實也包括已經存在，但我們尚未得知的事物──我們可能要等到未來某個時候才能知道這些事物，屆時我們可能已經造出更好的設備使我們的五官能知覺到這些事物。//

3. 真是鬼扯的翻譯！

// But we do know what kind of things could one day tell us if they are.
可以確定的是，如果外星人真的存在，那麼總有一天我們會知道他們的長相。//

「長相」是從英文的哪一個地方憑空妄想出來的啊？〔請想像這裡插入三萬個黑人問號！〕

But we do know 但我們確知：
what kind of things could one day tell us 什麼東西可以在未來的某一天告訴我們
if they are. 外星人是否存在
(=if they are a part of reality.外星人是否是現實的一部分)

英文完全沒有關於「長相、外貌」的痕跡！

4. 下一句也一模一樣，完全未提外星人的長相，爲何譯者那麼執念於外星人的長相？

// If ever we got near to an alien, our sense organs could tell us about it.
如果我們靠近外星人，我們的感官會讓我們知道外星人長什麼樣子。//

這裡，got near 是與現實相反的虛擬語氣，表示作者認爲我們距離認識、看到外星人還很遙遠。單單譯成「如果」也不夠力，可以說「萬一、萬一真的」。

5. 更基本的英文理解失能，是這個：it 指的是「our getting near to an alien」即條件句的內容，翻譯怎麼會瞎扯為「外星人的長相」呢？

改譯：萬一我們真的與外星人接近了，我們的感官會讓我們知道（這件事）。

// Atoms have always existed, but it was only rather recently that we became sure of their existence, and it is likely that our descendants will know about 【many more things that, for now, we do not.】 That is the wonder and the joy of science: it goes on and on uncovering new things. This doesn’t mean we should believe just anything that anybody might dream up: there are a million things we can imagine but which are highly unlikely to be real - fairies and hobgoblins, leprechauns and hippogriffs. We should always be open-minded, but 【the only good reason to believe that something exists is if there is real evidence that it does.】

原子一直都存在著，但我們知道有原子這個東西卻是相當晚近的事。很可能到了我們子孫的時代，人類【對原子的了解會比現在更深入。】 而這正是科學奇特與令人雀躍之處：科學總是能不斷揭露新的事物。但這不表示任何人夢想的任何事物我們都應該深信不疑：我們可以想像出一百萬件事物，但這些事物卻有可能極不真實，例如仙女與妖精，矮精靈與駿鷹。我們的心胸應該保持開放，【但我們必須要有真憑實據才能相信事物真的存在。 】//

6. 才一下段，又是一個基本英文句的誤解：

// it is likely that our descendants will know about many more things that, for now, we do not.
很可能到了我們子孫的時代，人類對原子的了解會比現在更深入。 //

know about many more things that, for now, we do not 指的不再是原子了，前句的原子只是舉例，告訴我們：很多存在的事物，人類會需要一段時間才知道存在。

改：很可能到了我們子孫的時代，人類才會認識許多目前不知道（已存在）的事物。

7. // the only good reason to believe that something exists is if there is real evidence that it does.
但我們必須要有真憑實據才能相信事物真的存在//

這句意思雖大致沒錯，卻失去原文的強調，「唯一」的好理由：

改：有真憑實據證明事物存在，是相信事物存在的唯一好理由。

以這種每段幾乎都有莫名其妙的誤譯的進度來看，整本書細究下來，問題恐怕是罄竹難書的「天文數字」！

Song written and sang by Nate Olson 黄智祥
Check out his Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/natezhixiang/?hc_ref=SEARCH

中文：
That's right, 我真的这么帅
你没有看过这么厉害的老外
我中文还不错，我什么都能说
追着我的女生当然有很多

That's why, 你每一次说嗨
我假装不是每一天一直都在
想到你的眼睛你的脸并且
让你觉得我跟你也没有那么亲切

But I, 不想把你伤害
根本不想让你觉得我希望你离开
So baby 让我告诉你我为什么我的心只能够因为你而感觉这么高兴 yeah

你在，我才能感觉alright
钱，其他的女生不能让我想要离开
我明明就是你的一直在这里等你的
希望你也不会决定要放弃了

我也希望你不会有压力，哦，baby yeah-ah
最后当然就是你的决定
但是你已经知道我根本离不开你，
所以祈求你接受我的心

Now I, 根本离不开
所以希望你有一天可以明白
我和你在一起要看我的运气
但是我相信一定会是reality

信赖，代表我的爱
就像月亮在以前的那时代
你问我爱你有多深，问我爱你有几分
你要是真的想知道我告诉你，一百遍

I know you know that we're gonna take it slow
but I just wanna know
baby where we gonna go
我们一起走， please我们一起走

So why, 你暂时还不在
我的身边come on baby girl don't be shy
我们一定会很幸福 and I really don't believe you
当你看着我说 I guess I'm just not meant to be with you

我也希望你不会有压力，哦，baby yeah-ah
最后当然就是你的决定
但是你已经知道我根本离不开你，
所以祈求你接受我的心

我想说真的不能爱你更多
但是这一句其实曾经也有想过
后来才知道，那时候就还好
做好你的男生 thats really what its all about
我给你我的心，只要你也愿意
我以耐心好好等你最后的决定
每天每个小时每一分钟都要保持
你在我的心里，这样才是好事

我也希望你不会有压力，哦，baby yeah-ah
最后当然就是你的决定
但是你已经知道我根本离不开你，
所以祈求你接受我的心

English:
That's right, I really am this handsome
You've never seen a foreigner as amazing as I am
My Chinese isn't bad, I can say most anything
Obviously lots of girls are trying to chase me

That's why, whenever you say hi
I pretend I dont spend every day
Thinking of your eyes and your face and
Make you think that you and I aren't that close

But I, dont want to hurt you
And definitely dont want you to think I want you to leave
So baby let me tell you why my heart can only feel this happy because of you


Only with you here, can I feel alright
Money, other women could never make me want to leave
I'm completely yours and I'm waiting here for you
Hope you also wont decide to give up on us


And I hope you wont feel any pressure, oh baby yeah-ah-ah
In the end it's all your own decision
But you already know that I could never leave you
So I'm asking you to accept my heart


Now I, could never ever leave
So I hope that one day you can understand
Me and you together, have to see how my luck goes
But I believe it will definitely be a reality


Trust, it represents my love
Just like the moon in the last generation
Ask me how deep I love you, ask me how many degrees I love you
And if you really want know I'll tell you again and again


I know you know that we're gonna take it slow
but I just wanna know
baby where we gonna go
So let's go together, please, let us go together


So why, you still arent here
Standing by my side, come on baby girl don't be shy
We will definitely be real happy, and I really don't believe you
When you look at me and say I guess I'm just not meant to be with you


And I hope you wont feel any pressure, oh baby yeah-ah-ah
In the end it's all your own decision
But you already know that I could never leave you

I want to say that I couldn't love you anymore,
But thats something I've wanted to say before
Afterward I realize, back then it wasnt near as much
Being your man, thats really what its all about
I'll give you my heart, as long as you are willing
I'll be here, patiently waiting for your final choice
Every day, every hour, every minute,
Always have to keep you in my heart
This is the only good thing

And I hope you wont feel any pressure, oh baby yeah-ah-ah
In the end it's all your own decision
But you already know that I could never leave you
So I'm asking you to accept my heart



-Logan Beck Inc. Films-