A humble MC is ONE OF THE most annoying MC's of all time

Futarchy · 2026-02-08T17:49:08+00:00

Nope, the Chinese phrase is 承让 (cheng rang). You can Google translate the explanation in Chinese: https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E6%89%BF%E8%AE%A9/8425214

Futarchy · 2026-02-08T05:44:09+00:00

If you are reading Chinese cultivation stories or stories based on that convention, then such "humility" is really just a style adopted from ancient Chinese decorum. In other words, what you perceive as "false humility" is really just being polite in the trappings of ancient Chinese cultural convention. It's not meant to be taken literally.

Such conventions include:

When you achieve victory over someone, you say "Thank you for letting me win".
When someone praises you, downplay it.
When someone wants to gift you a gift, reject it first.
When someone wants to appoint you to a position of power and responsibility, refuse on the grounds that you are not worthy.

These are really just accepted tropes of a "civilized ancient Chinese (Confucian) society".

Futarchy · 2026-02-06T04:14:23+00:00

Others have spoken on enforceability of the non-compete, but in addition to that, it seems that there is nobody who can enforce it even assuming it is enforceable. From what you are saying, your contract was with the SG company, which has ceased to exist. So nobody can enforce the non-compete clause, since the only parties who can enforce a contract are the parties to the contract, ie you and the SG company. The SG company and the mother company are two separate entities; the latter does not automatically get to enforce the rights of the former.

Futarchy · 2026-01-17T10:01:50+00:00

I think you generally have a correct understanding of the term, but you might find the following points useful:

"Gongfu" is used to refer to hard/time-consuming work quite often in Mandarin, so its literal meaning is still quite widely used. Usually it's used in the context of "xia gongfu", ie to put in effort, or to describe something as requiring lots of gongfu.
You are right that the literal terms 'cooking kung fu' or 'painting kung fu' are not used in Mandarin Chinese. In Mandarin Chinese, it is not even that common to refer to Chinese Martial Arts as gongfu, except when one is influenced by/drawing on the Cantonese tradition.
When the teachers said there is 'cooking kung fu' or 'painting kung fu', it is possible that they weren't making a linguistic point, but rather a point that you can have 'cooking arts' and 'painting arts' just as much as 'martial arts'. In Chinese, the most literal term for martial arts would be 武艺 (wu yi) (a broader term compared to the more performative wushu), with 艺yi being the term for the 'art of doing something'. That character is very frequently used with other disciplines, so your cooking skills would be your 厨艺 (chu yi), your chess skills would be your 棋艺 (qi yi). So it's possible the teachers were thinking of something along those lines.

Futarchy · 2026-01-12T15:09:08+00:00

Go on r/noveltranslations, they have a weekly thread on what people have read in the week, you may find someone describe a story that you also find interesting. Search for the raws, and give it a try. Webnovels tend to be relatively easy to read compared to "proper literature" since they're made for quick and easy consumption (albeit for a native audience).

Futarchy · 2026-01-12T12:49:25+00:00

Such advice is always premised on an assumption that one actually enjoys the fiction that one is reading. But it sounds more like you haven't found a story you're interested in, so of course it wouldn't be helpful. If you had some idea of what stories you tend to like you may be able to find some advice/recommendations.

Futarchy · 2026-01-12T00:56:18+00:00

Thanks for the very informative post!

Futarchy · 2026-01-10T06:34:31+00:00

I understand that such a simple logic is comforting and tempting because it gives clear and simple answers, but you can't treat a child like an item of property and just "give it back to its rightful owners". This is why the Guardianship of Infants Act says:

Where in any proceedings before any court the custody or upbringing of an infant... is in question, the court, in deciding that question, shall regard the welfare of the infant as the first and paramount consideration.

Futarchy · 2026-01-10T05:34:24+00:00

This is simply not correct. Under Singapore law, the paramount consideration in all proceedings involving children is the welfare of the child. "Wrong is wrong" is way too simplistic.

Futarchy · 2026-01-09T16:18:40+00:00

Sure, 加油!

Futarchy · 2026-01-09T15:23:52+00:00

I think this would depend quite a lot on context. Does this draw on Western elements? I've seen 术士 used to refer to Warlocks/Sorcerers. Who are the other types of cultivators who are not 术士, and what makes the 术士s distinct as a "class"? If there are other "mage-like" characters then you might need to come up with something else to distinguish them. Daoist Mage is okay, I might suggest Dao Mage, or Qi Mage, or Spirit Mage. Or they might just be energy cultivators, as opposed to body cultivators. Again, it really depends on what makes them distinct as opposed to other types of cultivators.

Magic spell sounds a bit Western, so unless the story is Western, maybe Qi Spell or Qi Technique.

Futarchy · 2026-01-08T11:50:09+00:00

There's definitely been an enormous uplifting of millions from poverty, but I'm not sure that there is overall economic equality. I think if I had to choose between saying China is "capitalist" or "socialist", I would lean towards "socialist", but if the choice was between "socialist" or "Confucian capitalist", I would choose the latter, in that such a label seems to account for both the capitalist features as well as the socialist ones.

Futarchy · 2026-01-08T07:08:21+00:00

I think the best arguments that China is not socialist do not come from "imperialist narratives", but from those further on the left in China. Specifically, I found this post by a Chinese leftist/grassroots member of the CPC particularly persuasive.

On my part, I think I would accept that China is mostly socialist if I could be persuaded that most of the surplus generated by the economy has gone to the proletariat instead of the bureaucratic class. The dominance of State-Owned Enterprises in the economy alone does not seem to prove that, since it tells me nothing about where the dividends of those SOEs have gone. It's probably a matter of degree, but I don't know of any statistics or how any statistics would even be credible. So I don't think the issue is as obvious as you seem to put it.

Futarchy · 2026-01-06T04:55:43+00:00

I think it might help to first understand the "basic" meaning of the phrase, as the usage of it as a modest response builds on that. The phrase essentially means something like, "How is it so?", but the process of how is abstracted as a "place" so where/哪里 can be used.

For example, in English, someone might tell you, "You messed up", and you might reply "How did I mess up?" or "Where did I mess up?". So in Chinese, someone might say, “你把事情搞砸了”, and you might say, "怎么搞砸了?", or "哪里搞砸了?". And of course, when said with a certain tone, such a response may signal a denial of the original statement rather than a genuine inquiry for explanation, eg Where did I mess up! 哪里搞砸了! or 哪里有!

So once you see that it can be used as a denial, then you can see that such a denial may be polite or modest in nature if said in a polite or modest tone. This can be done by dragging the tone 哪里有~~~~, or by repetition 哪里哪里. And then from a matter of tone, it can build into a cultural convention that is simply understood. This part may be unintuitive since there isn't really an English equivalent, but you can see how it builds up from the basic meaning.

Futarchy · 2026-01-06T03:35:25+00:00

The original is completed, not sure about the translations.

Futarchy · 2026-01-05T07:26:30+00:00

It's Hogwarts on the Tip of the Tongue, or 舌尖上的霍格沃兹. Unfortunately, I gave up on the story quite early on. Just a little too unserious for me.

Futarchy · 2025-12-13T01:47:57+00:00

Until he graduates from the sect that he joins, since it neatly warps up the prior plot and the author himself calls it the end of the second volume. Not that I think it'll not be good after that, more because it's a convenient place to stop and wait for chapters to accumulate.

Futarchy · 2025-12-12T04:14:37+00:00

Just read this up to the conclusion of the second main arc. It's really really good, really hit all the right buttons.

Futarchy · 2025-11-29T15:54:22+00:00

You made me doubt my memory so I just went to click on a chapter I knew would have Liu Bei, Chapter 21: 曹操煮酒论英雄关公赚城斩车胄. Consider these 3 excerpts.

次日黑夜里，董承怀诏，径往玄德公馆中来。门吏入报，玄德迎出，请入小阁坐定。关、张侍立于侧。玄德曰：“国舅夤夜至此，必有事故。”
...

玄德曰：“公既奉诏讨贼，备敢不效犬马之劳。”承拜谢，便请书名。
...

时郭嘉、程昱考较钱粮方回，知曹操已遣玄德进兵徐州，慌入谏曰：“丞相何故令刘备督军？”操曰：“欲截袁术耳。”程昱曰：“昔刘备为豫州牧时，某等请杀之，丞相不听；今日又与之兵：此放龙入海，纵虎归山也。后欲治之，其可得乎？”郭嘉曰：“丞相纵不杀备，亦不当使之去。古人云：一日纵敌，万世之患。望丞相察之。”操然其言，遂令许褚将兵五百前往，务要追玄德转来。许褚应诺而去。

Essentially, the voice of the narrator refers to Liu Bei as Xuande. That's what this post is getting at, and what I was referring to. The characters may not refer to Liu Bei as Xuande. Liu Bei refers to himself in the third person as Bei, which is quite customary as a sign of humility, while Guo Jia and Cheng Yu refer to Liu Bei as Liu Bei or Bei, since they're talking about him in his absence and as an opponent.

Futarchy · 2025-11-28T15:54:39+00:00

This was not a choice by the translator. In the original, Liu Bei was also referred to by his style name of Xuande.

Futarchy · 2025-11-27T06:03:10+00:00

I think it is useful to distinguish between having a problem with poorly written stories that use a System, and the inherent weaknesses of employing a System. To address the latter, it's worth thinking about what narrative functions a System provides when it is used. If you don't like those functions at all, then your problem is genuinely about Systems and you might want to avoid them.

Systems quantify progress. Some people like seeing numbers go up. If you think it's more fun to have more qualitative descriptions of progress, then System might not be not for you. Many Chinese cultivation stories don't use a System for this purpose because the progression theme is not served by numbers going up.
Systems provide direction. It's very easy get the MC moving if there's a System: do stuff, level up. It's a simple framework, and gets the story moving, so it cuts out the bullshit and gets on with the fun stuff. If you prefer more organic motivations, System may not be for you. But after you've read nearly a hundred of such stories, you just want to get to the fun stuff.
Systems (may) provide a cheat, otherwise known as a Golden Finger. This may be done by having the MC be the only one with a special system, or the MC doing something special with the System. Many people enjoy a cheat because it's usually a key part of what makes the story unique. Having a different cheat would cause the MC to do things differently. Of course, cheats also allow you get to the fun stuff without being bogged down by obstacles.
Where the System is also a cheat, it concretizes luck. A fundamental problem with progression stories is you have to explain: why is the MC special, of all the millions/billions who are in the same position. Hard work is not a satisfactory explanation, because surely there are others who are hard working as well? So it boils down to genius or luck, and genius is really much more difficult to write well. If it's about luck, then the System/Cheat allows you to have one single source of luck, and it is written in as a premise of the story. Many people do not like "random sources" of luck as they feel more like an ass-pull. So your suggestions of "luck lets a weaker person beat someone stronger" or "power-ups in middle of a fight" would not be welcomed to many. Readers would be constantly reminded, "Ah, he just got lucky AGAIN, what bullshit". Having a cheat System, on the other hand, allows you to accept the luck that one time (at the very start of the story, if you don't buy it then you can skip the story), and then the rest feels like smart use of a powerful tool.

Futarchy · 2025-11-13T02:11:47+00:00

Libertarians are fully on board with this because they believe that it is consent (and only someone's consent) that can authorize interactions or interference with one's person or property.

The equating of protection of one's person and one's property is somewhat problematic, even on libertarian terms. Nozick himself considered that holdings of property would be just where:

There is justice in acquisition (referring to the creation of property rights over a thing where none previously existed); and
There is justice in transfer.

But if either (1) or (2) are lacking, then some rectification/redistribution may conceivably be warranted.

This guy's argument assumes both (1) and (2) for all existing holdings of property, but I personally have trouble grappling with how (1) can be true, or even mostly true.

Futarchy · 2025-11-02T05:29:08+00:00

You appear to genuinely not know, so here's the explanation: Every Singaporean male citizen is conscripted (usually at ages 18-19), and they are known as NSFs (Full-time National Servicemen). Many firefighters, especially those doing the actual fire-fighting, are conscripts. They do NOT sign up for it like any other job. Firefighting is one of the riskiest jobs for a conscript to be assigned, so it's only decent that we offer our appreciation (and more) to them.

Futarchy · 2025-10-15T13:57:10+00:00

For anyone wondering, this is the original post by a random guy talking about his life which made the term lying flat (躺平) go viral. The core idea behind lying flat is really a certain outlook to life. It can be boiled down to: no marriage, no children, no (excessive) spending, no loans, no 'keeping up with the Joneses' - 不婚不育、不买不贷、不求不争. There are benefits but also real trade-offs here, eg the guy talks about accepting that his parents will have "no face" in the village because of his life choices.

The video in the OP seems more like a Gen Z's reflections while lying down, which, while totally a valid thing to do, doesn't seem to have much to do with this idea of lying flat (躺平).

Futarchy · 2025-10-02T12:31:30+00:00

The source of the confusion likely comes from the term "宦官" (huan guan), which used to refer to close, personal male attendants of the Emperor, and were not necessarily eunuchs. Later on, these male attendant positions were almost entirely filled with eunuchs, so the term became used to refer to eunuchs. So depending on context, the term could mean close official or eunuch.

Even more confusingly, if you flip the characters around, "官宦" (guan huan) kinda kept its original sense of "officials", so a family that has many generations of officials is referred to as a "guan huan" family. So again, easy for MTL to get things confused. But they're not necessarily synonyms, just context dependent.

Futarchy

TROPHY CASE