Jonathan Chiche

I visited the second part of the exhibition a few days ago and it is (of course) fantastic too. I may post pictures when I go back and have more time. Also, the printed catalogue is finally out and is a must (I bought ten).

Very excited about this 1783 book from Puebla, Mexico in a fantastic local gold-tooled binding with stenciled paper endleaves. Morgan Library & Museum, PML 199739.

YouTube video by Henrike Lähnemann New discoveries in Oxford's Chinese collections (Mamtimyn Sunuodula)

Learn about some significant new finds in Bodleian Libraries’ Chinese collection including an important missing page from the world’s earliest text of Cantonese opera safely hidden inside a 40-volume imperial dictionary, two leaves of a rare copper plate print album commissioned by Kangxi Emperor.

I am wondering whether it is possible that the generation of these images has been triggered by your initial search.

Just discovered the wonderful covers of 'Genes to Cells', the journal of the Molecular Biology Society of Japan @mbsj-official.bsky.social – absolutely beautiful!

here some examples inspired by mitosis, CRISPR, the DNA helix, and plant pigments

‪I roll my eyes at most people talking about the measurement problem in quantum mechanics, but Wojciech Zurek is the real deal.

He's been working on it for decades, making steady progress. This is a good quick intro to where he's at now. Of course it's no substitute for reading Zurek's papers!

such words to qualify Taiwanese politicians a good idea anyway?

Perhaps I’m wrong, but it seems to me that I recently see the expression “pro-Taiwan” much more than before. (As well as “pro-China”.) What does it mean? And to whom exactly does “pro-unification” refer? Are there people in Taiwan who would not fall into one of these two categories? And how is using

Since 1 and 2 above are mutual negations of each other, I don’t understand how neither of them could reflect DPP’s view, as your reply seems to imply. (Maybe I misunderstood?) I also don’t understand what would make a restaurant a better venue than Bluesky, where this exchange began and unfolded?

YouTube video by 苗博雅 直播call in全記錄：苗博雅與中國網友談民主，臺灣中國真的不一樣！【臺北百科全書精華EP121】

"憲法裡面現在中國大陸跟你們臺灣都是一個國家"? There certainly was better ways for the listener to phrase his sentence, but I find Miao's reply shameful. See the video below, starting at 9:13.

@pybaubry.bsky.social in case you want to comment... (I know she's not a DPP member.)

Related, a recent (and terrible in my view) exchange between Miao Poya (苗博雅) and a Chinese listener (link in the following post):

Listener: "在你們的憲法裡面現在中國大陸跟你們臺灣都是一個國家，都叫一個中國。"

Miao Poya: "我們憲法沒有寫喔。我們憲法沒有寫這樣喔。[...] 我們憲法沒有寫說中華人民共和國跟中華民國是同一個國家。"

How is "憲法沒有寫說中華人民共和國跟中華民國是同一個國家" a reply to

can see, this is the view upheld by the KMT people (the ones I've heard anyway). I that case, what prevents the DPP to do the same?

2. According to the ROC constitution, China and Taiwan (again, see above) are not both part of the ROC.

Of these two assertions, which one is true?

But alors (to quote Louis de Funès in "la Grande Vadrouille"), one of the two following things should be true:

1. According to the ROC constitution, both China and Taiwan (see above for the way I use these words) are part of the ROC, hence of "China" if you define "China" to be the ROC. As far as I

status quo endorsed by the DPP. How can you say you’re not trying to change it if you don’t say what it means?

a presidential debate? (He wasn’t the only one to dodge, but he dodged much more.) And that’s related to another point we already discussed, which is that I don’t see how one can say that only China is trying to change the status quo in these conditions. I’m still willing to hear a definition of the

And regarding your assertion that “the DPP accepts that Taiwan is governed under the ROC framework”, we’re back to a point we already discussed. How am I supposed to believe that they do this in good faith when the President himself dodged the question “請問你們認不認同中華民國憲法？” asked by a journalist during

the same time holding the view that the “1992 consensus” is not a consensus at all, that it doesn’t mean anything or is completely preposterous, that it should be thrown in the wastebasket, or rather that it is the greatest invention in the history of diplomacy, whatever. These are different things.

the PRC (I’m not claiming you did). If stating agreement with the “1992 consensus” is enough to talk to China (which I don’t claim to be true), then it’s not necessary to state that Taiwan is part of the PRC to talk to China. In addition, one can agree that the previous sentence is true while at

don’t know. At least from what I’ve heard so far, it’s difficult to conclude that there are very clear rules from both sides. As regards the “1992 consensus”, whatever it is supposed to mean according to whomever, then I can’t see how the KMT could be framed as having agreed that Taiwan is part of

Thanks Pierre-Yves! It’s possible that people I talked to and that the article you quoted are both wrong, and that there is no restriction by Taiwan on individual travelers from China. (In case it’s not clear, I’m refering to the two governments and the territories they currently administer.) I

Correction: "(set theory for instance)" should be just after "math", to avoid ambiguity.

mind-blowing stuff in math which has been invented or discovered (take your pick) since Euclid and which could be enjoyed without much prerequisites (set theory for instance). But again it probably depends on your interests, and your friend should know. Godspeed! Enjoy!

I can’t say whether Euclid would be a good start—I guess it depends what you’re interested in, but I can say that beginning with it would have seemed (to me) a very unusual advice when I was doing math. Especially if you don’t have much time to devote to learning math. And there’s so much

has declared that Taiwan was part of the PRC, which is a position I haven’t heard them take. I also haven’t heard them state that the so-called 1992 consensus, whatever this is supposed to be, implied that Taiwan was part of the PRC.

I’m sorry I may seem to be nitpicking, but I’m sure you know it’s not nitpicking and that people who don’t know why it’s not nitpicking may see this exchange and make a wrong conclusion. So, what’s the meaning of “China” in the statements above? To a naive reader, they may seem to imply that the KMT

Side note: in your messages, you write:
1. “Beijing wants the DPP government to say Taiwan is part of China”;
2. “the Kuomintang (with its adherence to the so-called 1992 consensus) is able to talk to Beijing”;
3. “only one [of KMT and DPP] was ready to say that Taiwan is part of China”.

and why. Several Chinese friends or professional relations have told me about their being unable to come to Taiwan because of restrictions by Taiwanese government, which of course, even if true, may only be part of the reasons why they can’t come—I wish I understood better.

Taiwan’s current regulations, however, only Chinese nationals who reside or study in a third country are allowed to apply for permission to visit Taiwan proper and the Penghu islands.” Which seems (to me) to confirm that Taiwan has put some restrictions on individual travelers—but I don’t know when

Taiwan's rules do not bar Shanghai residents from visiting Kinmen, Matsu: MAC - Focus Taiwan Taiwan does not prohibit visits to its outlying islands of Kinmen and Matsu by residents of Shanghai, the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) in Taipei said Wednesday, adding that the restrictions on such ...

travelers as well, yet your previous messages don’t seem to mention it. (I understand that you have other things to do than answering my questions, by the way, thank you for that. I just want to explain why I’m confused.) The article, which you quoted a few days ago, has this: “Under

Hello Pierre-Yves, thank you for your answer and sorry for the tardy reply. I must confess the situation is unclear for me. You write “if Taiwan were to unilateraly reopen to Chinese individual and group tourists”, which I understand as implying that Taiwan has put restriction on individual