跳至主要内容

The Entrepreneur of the Decade, An interview with Steve Jobs, Inc.'s Entrepreneur of the Decade

 

It took us all of about five minutes to decide that our Entrepreneur of the Decade would be Steven P. Jobs, co-founder of Apple Computer Inc. and founder of NeXT Inc. Granted, there are other entrepreneurs, a handful, who have enjoyed comparable success in the past 10 years, and who—unlike Jobs—have managed to avoid getting sacked by their companies in the process. But ultimately, their accomplishments pale alongside his. Without Jobs, after all, there would have been no Apple II. To that extent, he deserves credit for instigating—and shaping—a microcomputer revolution that has already transformed how we do business and may yet transform how we live.

Along the way, Jobs came to personify a whole generation of youthful company builders pioneering on the frontiers of technology—the men and women who, overnight, made Silicon Valley a business landmark and a household name. They were not only building companies; they were also experimenting with new ways of thinking about business itself. The national media hailed them for their innovative spirit and touted them as the people who would restore America's competitive edge.

Jobs was their most prominent representative, on the cover of Time before he turned 27. He came across as brash, abrasive, and rough edged. But he also had dreams, big dreams, and the peculiar ability to develop products that seemed to give us a glimpse of a bright and exciting future. What he did once with the Apple II, he did again with the Macintosh, only to be forced out of his company by the man he had recruited to lead it, former soft-drink executive John Sculley. Soon afterward Jobs started a new computer company, NeXT Inc., and then slipped from public view. But last fall he reemerged, staging a dramatic presentation at San Francisco's Symphony Hall to introduce his latest creation—a workstation for the higher-education market. Once again, his picture was splashed across newspapers and magazine covers. Steve Jobs was back.

Through it all, we followed his journey and shared his experiences, quietly rooting for his success. But it was not until we had settled on him as our Entrepreneur of the Decade that we realized how little we actually knew about him. That is the paradox of Jobs. As public as his life has been, he has remained a mystery over the years. We weren't at all sure what to expect when we met him at his Palo Alto, Calif., office.

Boyish is probably the word that best describes our first impression. He was wearing jeans and a turtleneck as he bounded up the stairs. He was friendly, even cordial, but there was a diffidence in his manner that became more pronounced as the afternoon wore on. A profoundly shy man, he had an almost physical aversion to any question that could be construed as even remotely personal.

On the other hand, he was thoroughly forthcoming about business. The experiences of recent years have not diminished his passion. He clearly loves what he is doing and talks about it with a fervent voice and gleaming eyes. In that respect, he seems as youthful as ever. Yet, at the same time, one senses a newfound maturity. Ask him the right questions, and he comes across as an extremely thoughtful person, engaged by deep issues, struggling to find the appropriate words, now able to articulate things that before he knew only by instinct.

By reputation, Jobs is a perfectionist and an extraordinarily demanding boss. Stories abound of the people he has burned out. We can believe them all. NeXT is surely no fun for those who don't share his fervor. Yet as we left, we realized that our strongest reaction to Steve Jobs was the one we considered least probable going in. We liked him.

Steve Jobs was interviewed by Inc. editors George Gendron and Bo Burlingham.

INC.: Where do great products come from?

JOBS: I think really great products come from melding two points of view—the technology point of view and the customer point of view. You need both. You can't just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them. By the time you get it built, they'll want something new. It took us three years to build the NeXT computer. If we'd given customers what they said they wanted, we'd have built a computer they'd have been happy with a year after we spoke to them—not something they'd want now.

INC.: You mean the technology is changing too fast.

JOBS: Yeah, and customers can't anticipate what the technology can do. They won't ask for things that they think are impossible. But the technology may be ahead of them. If you happen to mention something, they'll say, "Of course, I'll take that. Do you mean I can have that, too?" It sounds logical to ask customers what they want and then give it to them. But they rarely wind up getting what they really want that way.

INC.: It's got to be equally dangerous to focus too much on the technology.

JOBS: Oh, sure. You can get into just as much trouble by going into the technology lab and asking your engineers, "OK, what can you do for me today?" That rarely leads to a product that customers want or to one that you're very proud of building when you get done. You have to merge these points of view, and you have to do it in an interactive way over a period of time—which doesn't mean a week. It takes a long time to pull out of customers what they really want, and it takes a long time to pull out of technology what it can really give.

INC.: What do you mean?

JOBS: It's hard to explain. Sometimes the technology just doesn't want to show you what it can do. You have to keep pushing on it and asking the engineers over and over again to explain why we can't do this or that—until you truly understand it. A lot of times, something you ask for will add too much cost to the final product. Then an engineer might say casually, "Well, it's too bad you want A, which costs $1,000, instead of B, which is kind of related to A. Because I can do B for just 50¢." And B is just as good as A. It takes time to work through that process—to find breakthroughs but not wind up with a computer no one can afford.

INC.: And that's how you developed the NeXT machine?

JOBS: Right. I mean, we had the idea of doing a machine for higher education in the fall of 1985, but our original concept was about a third as good as the computer turned out to be. The improvement came from a lot of interaction between people in higher education and those of us at NeXT.

INC.: Give us an example.

JOBS: I have a friend at Stanford, a Nobel Prize-winning molecular biologist. He was showing me what some of his students were doing to understand how proteins fold. He asked, "Couldn't you model this stuff on a computer if you had something more powerful than a PC?" It really got me thinking. What if you came up with something that was as easy to use as a Mac, or even easier, and had the power of a workstation? What if you unleashed that machine in higher education? The more I thought about it, the more excited I got.

INC.: But there are a lot of workstations around and computers far more powerful than workstations. What's so exciting about a souped-up microcomputer?

JOBS: Well, that gets back to something I've said before. You see, I think humans are basically tool builders, and the computer is the most remarkable tool we've ever built. The big insight a lot of us had in the 1970s had to do with the importance of putting that tool in the hands of individuals. Let's say that—for the same amount of money it takes to build the most powerful computer in the world—you could make 1,000 computers with one-thousandth the power and put them in the hands of 1,000 creative people. You'll get more out of doing that than out of having one person use the most powerful computer in the world. Because people are inherently creative. They will use tools in ways the toolmakers never thought possible. And once a person figures out how to do something with that tool, he or she can share it with the other 999.

INC.: That's a big idea.

JOBS: It's an extremely powerful paradigm. It's what has driven a bunch of us since this whole thing began to happen, and it hasn't changed. It hasn't changed for me since 1975. That's almost 15 years now. I believe this is one of the most important things that's going to happen in our generation. It would be easy to step back and say, "Well, it's pretty much over now." But if you look carefully, it's not over by any stretch of the imagination. The technological advances are coming at a rate that is far more ferocious than ever. To me, it's staggering to contemplate the tools we're going to be able to put in people's hands in the next few years—and I don't get impressed by this stuff so easily anymore.

So what we're doing here is driven by a fairly strong faith that people are going to continue to be as creative and as ingenious and as sharing with their results as they have been over the past 15 years. That sharing gives us a kind of leverage. For every improvement we can make in the tools we give people, we can improve the ultimate results even more, thanks to this leverage. That's what gets us so excited.

INC.: Let's go back to the process of creating these tools. How different was it back in the '70s, when you and Steve Wozniak were developing the Apple I and the Apple II?

JOBS: It was basically the same, although we were a lot less sophisticated. The customers for the Apple I were Woz and me and our friends in the Homebrew Computer Club. The Apple I was really the first computer to address the needs of the hobbyist who wanted to play with software but could not build his or her own hardware. It came with a digital circuit board, but you still had to go get your own keyboard, power supply, and television monitor. If you were a techie, the Apple I seemed to go 90 percent of the way. Of course, if you weren't a techie, it only went 10 percent of the way. We sold almost 200 of the Apple I. I think they're all collector's items now.

INC.: No doubt.

JOBS: The Apple I took us over a big hurdle, but a lot of people who wanted to use the product were unable to. We were getting some feedback from a fairly small sample—maybe 40, 50 people. We were hearing from dealers, too. They'd say, "I think I can sell 10 times more of these if you would just put a case and keyboard around it." That's where a lot of the direction for the Apple II came from. If there hadn't been an Apple I, there would not have been an Apple II. The first product solved some of the problems and exposed the remaining ones in a much clearer light. But we were going on common sense. We didn't think in terms of customer feedback. We never even used the word customer.

INC.: So what were you thinking?

JOBS: We were thinking we should build a computer you could just roll out of the box and use. There were a lot more software hobbyists than hardware hobbyists around, and we could satisfy a lot more people if they didn't have to be hardware hackers to use it.

INC.: And that observation led to the Apple II.

JOBS: Right. And the same fundamental thing happened in 1979, when I saw an Alto [that had been developed] at Xerox PARC [Palo Alto Research Center]. It was as if, all of a sudden, the veil had been lifted from my eyes. It had the mouse and the multiple-font text on the screen, and you realized in an instant that this would appeal to exponentially more people than the Apple II. I'm talking about people who didn't want to learn how to use a computer—they just wanted to use one. You could eliminate a whole layer of what someone had to know in order to take advantage of this tool.

INC.: So the contribution of the Apple II . . .

JOBS: The Apple II peeled off the hardware layer. You didn't need to know about the hardware to use a computer. The next step was the transition from the Apple II to the Macintosh, which peeled off the computer-literacy layer, if you will. In other words, you didn't have to be a hacker or a computer scientist to use one of these.

INC.: Let's talk about some other aspects of these products. We've read stories about how finicky you were with the Apple II—how you insisted that every line of solder on the circuit board be perfectly straight, for example, and that the inside of the machine look neat and attractive.

JOBS: Yeah, that's right.

INC.: The NeXT circuit board is a thing of beauty, too. So is the computer. In fact, it could probably go in some collection at the Museum of Modern Art.

JOBS: They've called.

INC.: But why is the appearance of a circuit board so important to you? Is this just a personal quirk of yours?

JOBS: No, it's not arbitrary. You're asking, where does aesthetic judgment come from? With many things—high-performance automobiles, for example—the aesthetic comes right from the function, and I suppose electronics is no different. But I've also found that the best companies pay attention to aesthetics. They take the extra time to lay out grids and proportion things appropriately, and it seems to pay off for them. I mean, beyond the functional benefits, the aesthetic communicates something about how they think of themselves, their sense of discipline in engineering, how they run their company, stuff like that.

INC.: But who cares? Most people are never going to look inside.

JOBS: Woz and I cared from the very beginning. And we felt the people who were going to own the Apple II would care, too. We were selling these things for $1,600, I think, which was a lot of money back in 1977, and these were people who generally didn't have $1,600. I know people who spent their life savings on one. Yeah, they cared what it looked like on the inside.

INC.: Was this just intuitive to you?

JOBS: Yes, it was. We thought, why don't we take the extra few days or weeks and do it right? We had a fundamental belief that doing it right the first time was going to be easier than having to go back and fix it. And I cannot say strongly enough that the repercussions of that attitude are staggering. I've seen them again and again throughout my business life. They're just staggering.

INC.: How do you mean?

JOBS: In my experience, people get far more excited about doing something as well as it can be done than about doing something adequately. If they are working in an environment where excellence is expected, then they will do excellent work without anything but self-motivation. I'm talking about an environment in which excellence is noticed and respected and is in the culture. If you have that, you don't have to tell people to do excellent work. They understand it from their surroundings. You may have to coach them at first, but then you just get out of their way, and they'll surprise you time and time again.

INC.: So?

JOBS: So how do you communicate to people that they are in an environment where excellence is expected? You don't say it. You don't put it in an employee handbook. That stuff is meaningless. All that counts is the product that results from the work of the group. That will say more than anything coming out of your mouth or your pen. So you have to pay close attention to those details, even if they seem minor, because they communicate a big attitude about what you do.

INC.: Can you be more specific?

JOBS: Sure. When we started the Macintosh factory, I made a few mistakes before I finally put Debbie Coleman in to run it, and she turned out to be a good choice. I remember that I'd go out to the factory, and I'd put on a white glove to check for dust. I'd find it everywhere—on machines, on the tops of the racks, on the floor. And I'd ask Debbie to get it cleaned. I told her I thought we should be able to eat off the floor of the factory. Well, this drove Debbie up the wall. She didn't understand why you should be able to eat off the floor of the factory. And I couldn't articulate it back then.

See, I'd been very influenced by what I'd seen in Japan. Part of what I greatly admired there—and part of what we were lacking in our factory—was a sense of teamwork and discipline. We lacked discipline about little details, but they were important. This was an automated factory. It wasn't going to be the big things that would stop us. It was going to be the little details, because one little detail could shut down the whole line. If we didn't have the discipline to keep that place spotless, then we weren't going to have the discipline to keep all these machines running.

INC.: What happened?

JOBS: We went along for a while, and the factory became clean, but Debbie and I continued to have conflicts over various things. Then one day I came into the factory, and I saw that she had rearranged some of the machines. Before, they had been randomly placed around the floor. Debbie had moved them for some functional reasons and also for some nonfunctional reasons. She'd put them in a straight line and cleaned the place up visually. And I hadn't mentioned anything to her. Well, that told me a light bulb had come on for her, and I didn't need to say a thing about it ever again—and I never did. From then on, she just took off like a rocket, because she understood the underlying principle. And the factory worked great.

INC.: It sounds as if she had to figure it out on her own.

JOBS: Yeah, but this stuff takes time. Let me give you an example from NeXT. We have probably the most automated factory in the world. Our circuit board comes out untouched by human hands. We have a series of sophisticated robots, some of which we built, some of which we bought. Now these robots come in different colors, and I wanted them all painted the same color. We went through a lot of trouble over that because the robot companies weren't used to painting things in any color but their own. People in our factory asked me, "Why is it so important to paint these machines the same color? We don't understand it." So we had to sit down with everybody and explain. Even after hearing the reasons, it took people six months or so before they began to understand.

INC.: What are the reasons?

JOBS: For one thing, we want the place to look nice because we bring customers through. They're going to make a decision on using NeXT products, and they ought to know that we have a very high-quality manufacturing operation. But the real reason is that we don't want people to think of the factory as separate islands of automation. We want people thinking of the whole. Suppose we have a bottleneck at one robot. In reality, you can probably rebalance the line and solve the problem—provided you think of it as a whole. It took people six months to understand this, but now it's in their bones. We spend a lot of time going over these concepts and why they are important—not just in the abstract, but right down to the everyday tangible point of view. That's what building a company culture is all about.

INC.: Do you have more influence over things like that now than at Apple? There's a perception that the launch of Apple was a team effort, and NeXT is very much your show.

JOBS: Is that really the perception?

INC.: To some extent, it is. Of course, there weren't any celebrities at Apple back then. Now, you're a celebrity.

JOBS: Well, we all tend to reduce reality to symbols, but Superman went out a long time ago. The way you accomplish anything significant is with a team.

INC.: Is it a problem or an asset to be a celebrity?

JOBS: Is this Inc. or People?

INC.: Hold on. We're asking a legitimate business question. Maybe celebrity is the wrong word, but you must certainly be a magnet for bright, young talent, which is probably what helps make this an exciting place to work. Don't you ever worry that the very thing that attracts people to your company might also inhibit them from challenging you when they should?

JOBS: Again, it all depends on the culture. The culture at NeXT definitely rewards independent thought, and we often have constructive disagreements—at all levels. It doesn't take a new person long to see that people feel fine about openly disagreeing with me. That doesn't mean I can't disagree with them, but it does mean that the best ideas win. Our attitude is that we want the best. Don't get hung up on who owns the idea. Pick the best one, and let's go.

INC.: What about the expectations people have of you?

JOBS: I think people outside NeXT have fairly high expectations of us, because we have a lot of people here with impressive track records. Before we introduced the machine, many people felt we had little chance of living up to those expectations. The feedback I've gotten is that we've exceeded their expectations—which is a double-edged sword. Now, we have to be pretty much world class with our products and services, but that's also an opportunity.

INC.: Did you ever doubt you'd meet or exceed the expectations?

JOBS: You don't think about it that way. You just make the best product you can, and you don't put it out until you feel it's right. But no matter what you think intellectually, your heart is beating pretty fast right before people see what you've produced.

INC.: What about your expectations of yourself? A lot of successful company builders we know agonize about going back and doing it all over a second time. They think, if it's not bigger—in importance, that is, not necessarily in scale—why bother doing it?

JOBS: Well, first, you have to realize this is my third time. The Macintosh was my second. I mean, that was a bunch of us going off and starting in the garage again. We used Apple as a financial mechanism, and we used the sales force. But we fundamentally redefined a lot of things at Apple, and we had to do it from scratch.

INC.: Are you saying that you've already proven to yourself that you can do it all over again?

JOBS: I'm saying that my motivation is a little different this time. The computer industry is young. I view its future and its history as one long vector. We're only in the first inch of that vector. For some reason, we are in the right place at the right time to influence its direction. You just have to move the vector a little bit in the first inch, and the swing will be enormous by the time it gets to be three miles long. I think both the Apple II and the Macintosh contributed to setting the vector's direction—at least for the part of the computer industry that is most exciting to me. I hope the NeXT machine will contribute as well.

INC.: That's a tall order.

JOBS: It sure is. It means we have to succeed on a very large scale. Our smallest competitor is $1.75 billion these days. The world doesn't need another $100-million computer company. We have to get up to a certain scale if we want to play in the sandbox, and if we want to have the effect we're looking for at the end of the process. We're building the next billion-dollar computer company here—from the ground up.

INC.: How can you actually plan that kind of growth?

JOBS: You can't. Somebody once told me, "Manage the top line, and the bottom line will follow." What's the top line? It's things like, why are we doing this in the first place? What's our strategy? What are customers saying? How responsive are we? Do we have the best products and the best people? Those are the kind of questions you have to focus on.

INC.: Are those explicit goals for NeXT?

JOBS: We have three high-level goals. One is to make the best computers in the world for individuals. They might be in networks or in groups, but one person, one computer. Second, we want a company where really bright people can come and be handed a lot of responsibility early on. If we have an exciting place to work, we can get the best and the brightest to come work here. The third goal is to make sure that the people who build this company share in its success.

INC.: You once said that you felt people do their best work in their twenties. You're 33 now...

JOBS: I'm about to turn 34. Any day.

INC.: So is that a concern for you, given your ambitions for NeXT?

JOBS: No, I think I'm going to be doing some of my best work in the next few years. I want to make the most of it, and that means providing an unobstructed path for the brightest minds in our industry. My job becomes more to help them pick the targets correctly and then get out of their way.

INC.: That's very different from playing an intense hands-on role. It takes a certain maturity. You have to look for different rewards.

JOBS: I don't know about that. You're still in there working with your sleeves rolled up. Then the time comes to get out and let people do their work. But in a company as amibitious as NeXT, there is always another group asking for help. So it's not as if you ever have to sit around with nothing to do.

INC.: You seem to have thought a lot about your role.

JOBS: Yeah, well, when you do things the first time, you might have good instincts, but you don't understand the process intellectually. You may get some fairly good results, but you're not exactly sure why. It takes time and reflection to understand the process.

Then you get a chance to test your understanding. Some things will test out right; others will test out wrong. Hopefully, you're paying attention. By the third time, you should start to get a pretty good feeling in your gut that you understand the process. And you can use that understanding to become a lot more productive. That's how this feels. A lot of us have been working together for a long time.

INC.: So you can avoid mistakes?

JOBS: Oh, we'll make a whole bunch of mistakes. That's what life is about. But at least they'll be new and creative ones.

INC.: You once said that, in the early days of Apple, Woz was the great engineer, but you were the one who turned the ideas into products. Do you still think of your role in terms of the product?

JOBS: I think the same philosophy that drives the product has to drive everything else if you want to have a great company. Manufacturing, for example, is an extension of the engineering process for us. We view it more and more as a software-engineering job with interesting I/O [input-output] devices on the ends. It demands just as much thought and strategy as the product. If you don't pay attention to your manufacturing, it will limit the kind of product you can build and engineer. Some companies view manufacturing as a necessary evil, and some view it as something more neutral. But we view it instead as a tremendous opportunity to gain a competitive advantage.

INC.: Have you always viewed it that way?

JOBS: Ever since I visited Japan in the early '80s. And let me add that the same is true of sales and marketing. You need a sales and marketing organization that is oriented toward educating customers rather than just taking orders, providing a real service rather than moving boxes. This is extremely important. For most of your customers, after all, the sales folks are your company. So you've really got to pay attention to that. The point is that our philosophy is not a product philosophy. It's a philosophy of how we go about things, and it affects everything—finance, information systems. Can I digress for a moment?

INC.: Go ahead.

JOBS: Let's take the decision to automate a factory. You might have a lot of reasons for doing it, quality and other things. But there's a nice by-product of automation if you're growing very fast: you probably don't have to hire people as rapidly as you would if you weren't automated. When you hire people too quickly and don't give them appropriate training, quality drops off. So you have a much better chance of hanging on to your quality if you automate. The same is true in other parts of the company—accounts payable, for example. With a really good information system, you can automate a lot of those functions. Then you don't have to hire people, which saves your company an enormous amount of energy.

So, to build a great company, you need more than a great product. You have to pay attention to all the different areas and be as aggressive with them as with your product. Otherwise, you'll spend half your time fixing things that break. And that's typical of high-growth companies. Half the management time is spent making repairs—stock-option plans, marketing strategies, information systems, whatever.

INC.: Let's stop there. Suppose somebody is starting a company and doesn't have your resources to fall back on. Is any of this relevant?

JOBS: Well, obviously, you can't build a multimillion-dollar automated factory if you don't have the money. But a lot of this stuff just requires energy.

Take an employee stock-participation plan. You need help from a lawyer or a consultant. Most people take very little time selecting lawyers and consultants. It doesn't cost money to interview 10 lawyers, but you have to invest your time. And most people don't do it because they don't think it's important. But it is important. It will save you countless hours in the future.

And the same goes for auditors, accountants, engineering consultants, and so on. Because you need people who can anticipate the problems you will encounter and who can offer solutions.

INC.: It sounds as though you experienced these problems at Apple.

JOBS: Of course. I can show you the arrows.

INC.: This is just a personal observation. You seem much more interested in business than we had expected.

JOBS: Business is what I do.

INC.: But you have an image as someone more focused on the technical side of things.

JOBS: Well, there's the technical part of the equation and the business part, meaning the distribution, manufacturing, and so on. And then there's the human part. You just have to put the whole equation together.

INC.: May we ask you a mushy question? We're in a business in which we rarely get to see people using our product, except maybe on an airplane once in a while. But you get to see the products you've created being used all the time. Do you sometimes marvel at the effect you've had on people's lives?

JOBS: Well, yes, there are some moments. I was in an elementary school just this morning, and they still had a bunch of Apple IIs, and I was kind of looking over their shoulders. Then I get letters from people about the Mac, saying, "I never thought I could use a computer before I tried this one."

INC.: To some extent, you don't know how people are going to use a computer when it first comes out, do you?

JOBS: No, you don't. Sometimes it takes years to exploit a computer's baseline capabilities. It took five years before people exploited the advanced features of the Apple II. With the Macintosh, it took three or four years. So it's important to build in as much raw capability as possible when you put out the machine.

INC.: Did you have any idea that you were creating whole new industries with the development of the Apple II and the Mac?

JOBS: With the Mac, it was fairly clear; less so with the Apple II. But I must also say that the experience of watching it happen is quite different from the experience of imagining it happen. I think everybody who had anything to do with creating the Mac has very, very good feelings about it.

 

 

 

 

 

Popular posts from 产品随想的博客

产品随想 | 周刊 第128期:将时间转化为知识和体验

自行车棚效应:我们为什么在小事上纠结,却对大事视而不见?   https://limboy.me/posts/bike-shedding Benz-Patent   https://www.mercedes-benz.com/en/innovation/milestones/benz-patent-motor-car/ 豐田博物館   https://toyota-automobile-museum.jp/tw/ 值得一去的汽车博物馆 一人公司   https://github.com/cyfyifanchen/one-person-company one-person-company, 一人公司 AI 工具系列 wujiaxian   https://wujiaxian.com/ 可能吧创始人的个人Blog,介绍自己的方式,很值得学习 日本京都10大設計熱點!「建築大師貝聿銘操刀美術館,皆川明設計旅館、選物店,還有全球最美的藍瓶咖啡店舖!」   https://www.elle.com/tw/life/style/g33846398/2020-kyoto-10-hotspots/ 京都真是非常美 Henry L. Stimson   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_L._Stimson?useskin=vector While Kyoto may have satisfied the military criteria for a useful target, Stimson objected, declaring in a meeting if the Interim Committee on June 1, 1945, "...there was one city that they must not bomb without my permission and that was Kyoto." 人性的努力保护了京都 Brooke Astor, 105, Aristocrat of the People, Dies   https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/obituaries/14astor.html 值得尊敬...

产品随想 | 周刊 第127期:晨光只开一刻钟,但比千年松,并无甚不同

Cherry Studio   https://github.com/CherryHQ/cherry-studio Cherry Studio is a desktop client that supports for multiple LLM providers. Support deepseek-r1 Aalto Repository beta   https://repo.aalto.fi/ Images, sounds and videos from Aalto University 这个系列,价值极高 Nokia Design Archive   https://nokiadesignarchive.aalto.fi/ 芬兰这个国家很了不起 对话影石刘靖康:两代未出现划时代的产品,就会沦为平庸的品牌   https://www.geekpark.net/news/308996 还挺喜欢这个创始人的,有一种海盗的内涵 从哈佛、明星创业者到酷家乐副总裁,苏奇的传奇   https://app.modaiyun.com/mdy/article/3FO4K4W0M259 WHO关于猫狗咬伤、抓伤的处理建议 动物咬伤: https://www.who.int/zh/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/animal-bites 狂犬病: https://www.who.int/zh/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/rabies 关于狂犬病的10个事实: https://www.who.int/zh/news-room/facts-in-pictures/detail/rabies INDIGO 新年直播(2025)   https://www.youtube.com/live/ZIgPvSDGAfY 对2024年AI发展的回顾部分特别好 Artab   https://github.com/get-artab/artab Get Inspired by the World's Greatest Artworks Every Time You Open a New Tab. Extension Available for Chrome, Edge, and...

MongoDB学习笔记

这是我阅读《MongoDB权威指南》的学习笔记,前七章侧重在开发者角度谈MongoDB,后面才是运维管理者角度 一. 理论部分 入门 文档:多个键及其关联的值有序地放置在一起便是文档 集合:一组文档 虽然子集合没有特别的地方,但还是很有用,很多MongoDB工具中都包含子集合 GridFS是一种存储大文件的协议,使用子集合来存储文件的元数据,这样就与内容块分开了 MongoDB的Web控制台通过子集合的方式将数据组织在DBTOP部分 绝大多数驱动程序都提供语法糖,为访问指定集合的子集合提供方便。例如:在数据库shell里面,db.blog代表blog集合,db.blog.posts代表blog.posts集合 在MongoDB中使用子集合来组织数据是很好的方法,在此强烈推荐 数据类型 JSON表现力也有限制,因为只有null,布尔,数字,字符串,数组和对象几种类型, MongoDB保留JSON键值对基础上,增添了其他一些数据类型 使用GridFS存储文件有如下原因: 会直接利用业已建立的复制或分片机制,所以对于文件存储来说故障恢复和扩展都很容易 可以避免用户上传内容的文件系统出现的某些问题 不产生磁盘碎片,因为MongoDB分配数据文件空间以2GB为一块 开发者角度到此为止,下一篇是运维角度的学习

无处不在的监控: Hacking Team:WP8 监控代码分析

原文来自乌云,备份 地址 0x00 背景 最近Hacking Team被黑客入侵,近400GB的资料泄漏,在安全界炒的沸沸扬扬.其中泄漏的资料包括:源代码,0day,资料入侵项目相关信息,相关的账户密码,数据及音像资料,办公文档,邮件及图片。 Hacking Team在意大利米兰注册了一家软件公司,主要销售入侵及监视功能的软件。其远程控制系统可以监测互联网用户的通讯,解密用户的加密,文件及电子邮件,记录各种通信信息,也可以远程激活用户的麦克风及摄像头。其产品在几十个国家使用 在源代码中有各个操作系统平台的远程控制软件源码, RCS(Remote Control System) 。经过我们的分析,发现其监控内容不可谓不详尽。 Android,blackberry,ios,windows,window phone,symbian 均有与之对应的监控代码。 在源码中,rcs为前缀的源码文件是其远控功能,包括代理 控制 监控数据库 隐藏ip 等,而针对特定平台架构的是以core前缀命名。其中和相关window phone监控代码在 core-winphone-master.zip 文件中。其主要用于实时手机系统的系统状态信息如(电池状态,设备信息,GPS地址位置),联系人,短信记录,日历日程安排,照片;同时还能录音,截取手机屏幕,开启摄像头,话筒等功能,由此可见监控信息的详细程度令人害怕。 0x01 WP8监控源码分析 core-winphone-master\MornellaWp8\MornellaWp8 下是其主要核心代码,主要文件如下: 通过观察源码流程图可以看出,整个监控项目源码的逻辑还是比较复杂的,但是深入之后,发现其还是设计的比较巧妙 0x01-1 程序框架分析 1.项目主要分为3大块 Modules,Events,Actions ,主要的功能Modules核心监控代码在此处,Event等待监控事件的到来并调用对应的监控模块,Action主要负责一些行为的启动和停止 程序启动流程如下: main->mornellaStart->BTC_Init->CoreProc->Core->Task setLoadLibraryExW 分支主要负责加载一些API函数的地址,...

产品爱好者周刊 第26期:PRISM, XKeyscore, Trust No One

  Products Gitea - Git with a cup of tea   https://gitea.io/en-us/ A painless self-hosted Git service. 自建Git服务,避免GitHub隐私侵犯 https://github.com/objective-see/LuLu LuLu is the free macOS firewall 监视Mac的出站流量,且阻断 OverSight   https://github.com/objective-see/OverSight OverSight monitors a mac's mic and webcam, alerting the user when the internal mic is activated, or whenever a process accesses the webcam. 监视是否有应用调用Mac的麦克风、摄像头 Mozilla Hubs   https://github.com/mozilla/hubs The client-side code for Mozilla Hubs, an online 3D collaboration platform that works for desktop, mobile, and VR platforms. 开源的多人虚拟空间,Mozilla打造,企业级VR诉求 数字移民   https://shuziyimin.org 关于内容源、工具的推荐,适合刚接入国际的新人 SimpleLogin   https://simplelogin.io/ 匿名邮箱工具,转发用,Michael Bazzell推荐 Telegram 群组、频道、机器人 - 汇总分享   https://congcong0806.github.io/2018/04/24/Telegram/#机器人-bot https://archive.ph/iJMBj 献给那些将来到Telegram的朋友 Design Patrick Wardle   https://www.instagram.com/patrickwardle/?hl=en 他的IG,摄影也精彩,审美...

ifconfig参数备忘

       主要指标说明: eth0/lo:网络接口名 Link encap:网络类型

产品随想 | 读《中国是部金融史》:第三章至第五章

  第三章 犯我货币者,虽强必诛(汉高祖一汉武帝) 刘邦大概没有想到,他的土地政策奠定了此后两千年的社会结构:皇帝是社会最高层,具有至高无上的权力;皇帝之下是三公九即等封建官僚,拿皇帝的钱,逐级管理小农;最底层是万千小农,他们对帝国纳税,用自己的血汗钱养活帝王与封建官僚。此后,中国封建社会结构始终没有摆脱“皇权一封建官僚一小农”这个三位一体的窠臼。 既然消灭了异姓王,正常思维应该是仿效秦始皇强化郡县制,但是这位平民皇帝选择了…条谁也想不到的道路,他分封自己的兄弟子侄为王,并与诸王约定,此后非我子孙称王,天下人都可以杀了他(非刘氏而王者,天下共击之)。刘邦亲眼目睹了秦帝困的分崩离析,危急时刻无人愿意支撑起破败的帝国。华竟,官僚靠薪水吃饭, 就算贪污的本事很大,也没有理由维护别人的一姓天下。 如果没有血浓于水的同姓诸侯王,汉帝国将来同样无法应对真正的危机。事实证明,分封刘氏诸王是对的,如果没有刘邦留下来的同姓诸侯,恐怕汉朝早就得跟着皇后吕雉姓“吕”了。 人们习惯于将刘邦的皇后吕雉称呼为“吕后〞,这是中国古代历史上第一位临朝称制的太后,另外两位要等到盛唐和晚清才能在本书中出镜,三位女强人都是中国货币史上浓墨重彩的人物。 然而,从吕雉开始,仅仅不到一个世纪, 破败的汉帝国就一跃变为当时世界上最强盛的国家,直接把打遍天下无敌手的匈奴骑兵赶到了西欧,让罗马帝国受尽了欺凌。吕后末年,西汉单个农业劳动力的原粮产量已经突破了三干四百斤,这不但是西欧一干五百年后的劳动生产率,也远高于1973年中四的劳动生产率(二千二百四十斤)。应该说,中西文明争霸就是从汉帝国驱赶匈奴开始的,在第一轮交锋中,西欧完败。 ──原来西汉能超过1978年,厉害 吕雉坚决执行了一项前无古人(后有来者)的税收政策—“十五而税一”,换算一下,吕雉时代庶人个人收入所得税税率为 6.6%,而且,没有累进税率。 《二年律令》彻底改变了中国历史的发展轨迹,秦人以军功授田,刘邦以服兵役为代价授田,只有到了吕雉才真正实现了全困范用的“均田“。这是中国历史上第一次以法律形式明确了土地私有制度,每一个最普通的庶人都获得了土地,整个社会实现了孟子的“百亩之田、五亩之宅”理想。这是无数先贤追求的大同世界梦想一“耕者有其田”,请注意,我没有说这是“耕者有其田"的雏形,而是实实在在的“耕者有其田"。 ──对汉朝,充满敬...

常用建筑素材站点

高大上的建筑竞赛效果图中的素材是如何收集的回答,感谢知乎 Vincent Ku 以下是之前搜寻过的素材网站,应该这些够用了 http:// skalgubbar.se/ http:// skalgubbrasil.tumblr.com / http://www. immediateentourage.com/ http://www. gobotree.com/ http://www. mrcutout.com/ http://www. cutoutlife.com/ http://www. nonscandinavia.com/ http://www. escalalatina.com/ http://www. mayang.com/textures/ind ex.htm http://www. textures.com/ ===== 感谢知友 @SJTUboy 补充 http:// maps.stamen.com/# watercolor/12/37.7706/-122.3782 http:// maps.stamen.com/m2i/# toner-background/2000:2000/10/31.1674/121.6063 作者:Vincent Ku 链接:https://www.zhihu.com/question/31584353/answer/73642305 来源:知乎 著作权归作者所有。商业转载请联系作者获得授权,非商业转载请注明出处。

The Little MongoDB Book

The Little MongoDB Book 基础 在一个MongoDB实例中可以有若干数据库或一个都没有,不过这里的数据库都是高层次容器,用来储存其他的所有数据 一个数据库可以有若干集合或者一个都没有, 集合由若干文档组成,也可以为空 文档由一个或更多的域组成 索引的意义 游标和以上概念不同,很重要但是常常被忽略,有一点很重要,每当向MongoDB索要数据时,总是返回一个游标 小结一下,MongoDB由数据库组成,数据库由集合组成,集合由文档组成。域组成了文档,集合可以被索引,从而提高了查找和排序的性能。最后,从MongoDB读取数据的时候是通过游标进行的,除非需要,游标不会真正去作读的操作 读到后面觉得实战意义不是很大,就跳过了

产品随想 | 周刊 第126期:Think of your life as a rainbow arcing across the horizon of this world

FolderPaint   https://github.com/MichaelTr7/FolderPaint Folder colour changing application for macOS. 乔布斯说:“对于我和苹果公司的许多人来说,索尼的盛田昭夫是最大的灵感来源之一。我希望我们今天的所想所为能让他会心一笑。” 乔布斯甚至从索尼挖走了一位顶级设计师。哈特穆特·艾斯林格被苹果挖走前,已在 100 多种索尼产品的创造中发挥了重要作用。 供职于索尼时,艾斯林格所在的设计工作室与管理办公室和工厂车间享有同等地位。他说,这样有助于促进公司生产和设计团队之间在一定程度上达成团结,这正是乔布斯试图重建的团结。 艾斯林格指出:“乔布斯有能力洞察事物的好坏,却不知道如何实现以及如何通过组织去构建。因此,我们向苹果提出的第一个建议是,赋予设计师一定的话语权。” 斯卡利表示,乔布斯和盛田之间的深厚友谊和相互敬重可以归结为对于设计的共同热忱。 “他们以非常积极的方式产生了共鸣”,斯卡利说,“两位来自不同文化背景的创始人共聚一堂,这是非常难能可贵的。他们讨论设计原则,却从不谈及商业模式。” “Think of your life as a rainbow arcing across the horizon of this world. You appear, have a chance to blaze in the sky, then you disappear.” City Lights Bookstore   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Lights_Bookstore?useskin=vector 旧金山的城市之光独立书店 Vesuvio Cafe   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesuvio_Cafe?useskin=vector 好奇怪,这家Cafe居然没有太多的介绍 “One of the things that I was fortunate of was to see and understand the context of San Francisco through the eyes of Steve Jobs,” Mr. Ive said. “He kn...