Talk with Guinness

 GCIOSGF Newsletter: 

Reprinted 

Mark Zuckerberg and Alexandr Wang don't seem to like Guinness very much

Mark Zuckerberg and Alexandr Wang joined Stripe cofounder John Collison for a beer on the latest episode of "Cheeky Pint" — but viewers aren’t convinced the Meta executives were converted to Guinness.

Zuckerberg and Wang spent 134 minutes on the podcast discussing Meta’s AI ambitions, including the company’s new Muse product and its massive spending plans. 

As is customary on Collison’s interview series, the discussion took place over pints of Guinness, an Irish dry stout, known for its rich, malty, and slightly bitter taste.

The episode began with a series of cheers between Collison, Zuckerberg, and Wang. Later, Zuckerberg revealed that he brought his host a keg of Guinness from Dublin.

The exchange has drawn attention after viewers shared clips of Zuckerberg and Wang drinking the stout. In the footage, Zuckerberg takes a slow sip and swills it around in his mouth, before appearing to wince — a moment that prompted comments about whether he was enjoying it.

Social-media users were quick to focus on Zuckerberg’s expression after the sip. Commentator Ed Zitron joked that he should "spit it out and say 'eww!!!!'"

Another user wrote that Zuckerberg appeared to be thinking: "Wow, that’s nasty."

The clip was also shared to the r/Sipstea subreddit with the caption "Mark Zuckerberg pretending to enjoy Guinness." One user observed, "Never seen someone try and chew a Guinness."

Although for those who do not enjoy the trademark acquired taste that is Guinness, Zuckerberg's reaction seemed somewhat relatable, with one user noting, "That was the most normal thing I've ever seen him do, actually."

Meta did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Zuckerberg and Wang's thoughts on the taste of Guinness.

Elon Musk outdrank Zuckerberg on 'Cheeky Pint'

Tyler Cosgrove, who works on the TBPN podcast, watched the full two-hour show and counted how much Wang, Zuckerberg, and Collison drank.

While Zuck finished about a pint and a half, Cosgrove noted that Wang nursed one Guinness for the full episode and didn't finish it.

Cosgrove compared that with a "Cheeky Pint" interview with Elon Musk, where he estimated Musk drank three pints and Collison drank four.

During the podcast, the three discussed how Meta is developing Muse, its personal AI agent. Zuckerberg said he uses the product to analyze video from his MMA training, with the system giving him feedback between rounds.

Wang described using his own agent to source teas from vendors in Taiwan and Japan. The pair also discussed Meta's focus on multimodal AI, privacy and security, and its plans for larger models.

塑形是關鍵

 GCIOSGF  Newsletter 會訊：

Reprinted:

教育軍備競賽，大概是全世界父母最捨得花錢的一種。

即使是暑假期間，國三與高三的學生，多數不是在學校暑輔，就是待在補習班。

之前寫過，一個社會的貧富差距愈大，父母就愈傾向要求孩子用功讀書。差距愈小，父母愈敢讓孩子自由發展。

以台灣的狀況來看，全台立案補習班將近 1.7 萬家，跟便利商店總數差不多；一個孩子從小學補到大學，平均花掉約 170 萬元，差不多就是最近熱烈討論的「台灣未來帳戶」的累計金額。而台灣部分私立中學的錄取率，甚至比台灣大學的錄取率還低。多陪的 4 小時，不是有錢有閒，而是有意識的犧牲.

但如果我們去看美國和英國的長期追蹤資料，會發現一件尷尬的事：對下一代影響最大的那個變數，不在補習班，不在私立中學，也不在學區房..

美國的時間運用調查發現：大學學歷的母親，每周花在孩子身上的時間，比高中學歷的母親多 4 小時。

你可能會說，人家有錢有閒當然陪得起。錯了。資料顯示這些母親的帶薪工時並沒有比較短，她們的「休閒時間」反而少了 4 小時。

不是有錢有閒才這麼做，是有意識的犧牲。她們把自己的娛樂，換成了孩子的時間。

會管就有差，怎麼管差更多

經濟學家馬蒂亞斯．德普克（Matthias Doepke）和法布里奇歐．齊利伯蒂（Fabrizio Zilibotti）在《金錢如何影響愛與教養》（暫譯，Love, Money, and Parenting）整理了美英 2 國的資料，把教養方式分成 4 種：

專斷（下命令要求服從）

威信（講道理，讓孩子把價值觀內化成自己的）

放任（尊重孩子，隨他去）

忽略（不管也不回應）

結果指向同一個方向：美國的資料用「學歷」當尺，父母沒念過大學的家庭裡，威信教養的孩子日後學歷超過高中的比率，比忽略型家庭高 13 個百分點。英國的資料用另一把尺：「職業階層」，把職業分成 7 級，在父母階層相同的條件下，威信教養的孩子爬上比父母更高階層的機率，比放任型家庭高 13%。

2 個國家、2 把完全不同的尺，量出同一個結論。

低學歷家庭的數字更值得看：父母都只有高中學歷時，光是把教養從「忽略不管」改成「會管、會要求」，哪怕是老派的專斷式，孩子拿到研究所學位的機率就變成 3 倍。如果父母有一人讀過大學、又採取講道理的威信教養，機率是 5 倍。

管，就有差。怎麼管，差更多。

補習是邊際遞減的資產，陪伴才是複利

那補習呢？

這不是說補習沒用。

台灣自己的實證研究（劉正，2006，用台灣教育長期追蹤資料庫的國中生樣本）發現：補習對成績確實有明顯幫助。但呈現倒 U 曲線，每周補到約 8.4 小時效果達到頂點，之後繼續加時數，效果不增反減。

而根據兒福聯盟的調查，台灣每 5 個孩子就有一個，每天放學後在補習班超過 3 小時。換算下來，遠遠超過那個頂點。

補習買到的是解題技巧和考試熟練度，它有效，但邊際遞減。而耐性、自控、動機、把眼光放遠的能力，也就是經濟學家稱之為「非認知能力」，長期追蹤研究發現這才是決定收入、就業、人生成敗的關鍵。而這組能力的養成機制是日常的親子互動，本質上無法外包，因為它不是教材，是關係。

用投資的語言說：補習和教養是兩種不同的資產。

送孩子去補習班沒有錯，錯的是「我付了錢，陪伴就外包了」的替代邏輯，也就是重倉了邊際遞減的資產，卻輕倉了複利最強的那一項。

台灣父母缺的不是時間，是「在場」

兒福聯盟做過另一個調查：台灣父母的親子陪伴中，只有 4 成是積極參與，近 3 成是坐在旁邊被動旁觀，另外 3 成，根本在分心。分心的父母裡，44% 在滑手機。

超過 7 成的父母，把「一起看電視、一起滑手機」當成陪伴。

這正好是「威信教養」的反面：有時間的量，沒有互動的質。 孩子學不到怎麼思考，只看到爸媽的眼睛永遠在螢幕上，只學習到原來手機是這麼迷人的東西。

父母能做的 3 件事

所以，能做什麼？

教養是槓桿，不是魔法。同一本書的研究也顯示，非高學歷家庭就算把教養做到最好，孩子拿到研究所學位的機率也只有一成，結構的天花板存在，個人努力不能保證翻身。

但在你能控制的範圍內，資料指向 3 件事，而且都不用錢：

給時間。 每周多出的那 4 小時，犧牲的是父母自己的休閒，不是加班費。每周 4 小時，10 年就是 2000 個小時的複利。

給專注。 放下手機的一小時，勝過滑著手機的 3 小時。孩子分得出來你在不在場。

給理由。 真正拉開差距的是威信教養，不是嚴格本身。下命令教出服從，講道理教出判斷，而判斷力，是孩子未來不管做什麼都帶得走的東西。

補習班的邊際效益會遞減。

客廳裡的複利，不會。

Strategy is important

GCIOSGF Newsletter:

Reprinted

Stephen Levi Carter, MBA, PMP  

•Co-CEO of Cartera Health | Co-Author of The Business of Healing

Entrepreneur Authorities Executive Counc

Minted grew rapidly after founder Mariam Naficy changed her strategy.

She Raised $2.5 Million From Friends and Family — And Saw Zero Sales. Then She Leaned Into a ‘Hunch.’ Now Her Company Sells $300 Million a Year.

Key Takeaways

• Mariam Naficy is the founder and chairman of Minted, a global design marketplace.
• At the start, in 2007, Naficy burned almost all of Minted’s initial $2.5 million funding round on a failed model of selling existing stationery brands online.
• A low-budget side experiment, crowdsourced design competitions for independent artists, became Minted’s core product and ultimately unlocked overwhelming demand.
• 
  

When Mariam Naficy opened the virtual doors to Minted, her stationery startup, she encountered every founder’s worst nightmare: silence. There were no customers. Back in 2008, no one was buying stationery online. Naficy had raised $2.5 million from friends and family, and poured most of it into building the business. Now, she was quickly running out of money. 

But Naficy had one thing going for her. Of the $2.5 million she’d raised, she had dedicated $100,000 to building a competition for artists to submit designs, with the winners work being sold on Minted. She had pitched this “crowdsourcing” idea to investors, and none had been excited about it. They wanted her to stick to selling known stationary brands.

As it turns out, that competition ended up saving the company. Artists submitted card designs, the community voted on the best one. Instead of acting like a digital stationery retailer, Naficy reframed Minted as a marketplace and a community for independent artists. Minted grew quickly from that point, and has been reported to do $300 million in revenue.

Now the chairman of Minted, Naficy spoke with us about her journey, and how she learned to trust her instincts. Responses have been edited for length and clarity. 

I’m a founder and angel investor. I’ve founded three companies: Eve, the first online cosmetics retailer, which I founded in 1998 and sold to LVMH in 2000; Minted, the design marketplace, which I founded in 2007 and ran for 16 years; and Arcade, the first AI-to-physical-product design system, which I founded in 2023. With Arcade, I’m using AI as a tool for turning taste into manufacturable products. 

I’m a builder at the intersection of technology, design, and creative communities. I’ve gotten here by combining systems thinking, taste and execution. 

What’s your educational background and early work history? 

I grew up attending American schools in 5 countries and went to Williams College (where I majored in Political Economy). I was lucky to be exposed to beautiful architecture and crafts in all of those countries, and often trailed my mom around markets and bazaars. I became accustomed to frequent change, since we moved every 1-3 years. 

My first job out of school was at Goldman Sachs. Though Goldman was a great educational foundation, I quickly realized that I wasn’t inspired by finance, and wanted to be in a more creative business. 

Walk me through the origin story of Minted. How did you get started?

I founded Minted alone in 2007, working late at night in the attic of my house in San Francisco at 1917 Vallejo Street. I had just left my job running e-commerce at The Body Shop, and was taking a maternity break. I wanted to start a lifestyle business that would give me the chance to spend time with my children. And I was searching for a business idea based on lessons I had learned building Eve.com. I wanted to build virality and marketing into a product rather than having to pay to acquire customers, and was seeking a no-inventory, low-cash-required business. This pointed me towards invitations and cards. 

I thought that I was starting a niche business to serve a small group of customers who cared a lot about design. 

At the same time, I felt that the designs on Shutterfly and other online card sites were seriously lacking. If we could find a way to attract up-and-coming designers, I thought, this would level the playing field and create better, fresher thinking. I thought that perhaps a design competition would be a great way to source. I decided to name it a “challenge” instead of a “competition”, to better appeal to designers and to underscore the growth mentality that I thought would serve as a better foundation for building a community. 

What I didn’t realize at the time was that I would be creating a community of artists who would become very bonded to each other, and that I (and eventually our customers) would come to care a lot about independent designers. Minted’s mission has expanded to support our community of independent artists and connect consumers to them. 

How did you pitch Minted to investors? 

Mostly, I pitched Minted on the business fundamentals: a large total addressable market size and strong financial attributes. 

But I was also trying to make the case that crowdsourcing would create better design—an idea that was hard to convince others of. We had a very hard time raising our first round of venture financing. When sales took off like a rocket ship because of that great design, it was much easier to raise capital. 

When did you become profitable?

We made it to profitability with $11 million in capital, breaking even in 2012. 

What did it take to turn the silence of no one buying stationery into sales?  

We pivoted from wedding invitations to holiday cards, and we pivoted from selling stationery brands to crowdsourcing artwork from independent designers who no one had ever heard of. And it took scrappy marketing to get the flywheel going. 

What are some lessons you learned while building the business? 

When Minted launched in July 2008, reselling wedding invitations from other stationery brands, sales were basically nonexistent, and within weeks, I was seriously considering shutting the company down and returning the money we had left to investors. 

The only real signs of life came from the tiny assortment of unique designs that we had crowdsourced: first one order, then a few per week, and those sales were coming from the community-designed products, not the stationery brands we had launched. I had little traffic, a 0.1% conversion rate, skeptical employees, skeptical press and a sense that the company might not work. 

Then, after we pivoted to crowdsourced holiday cards in November, our sales shot through the roof and we had to shut off our marketing and turn away orders because we reached our maximum capacity. Everyone’s spouses had to come in to help process the orders. We were all sitting on the floor because we didn’t have enough time to order desks. With my newborn daughter at home, I was working on the printing line, blow-drying shrink wrap around card orders—and even crept up the stairs one night at 1 a.m. to deliver an order in San Francisco’s Pacific Heights neighborhood because the order was late. Because conversion is much higher in the holiday period, and we had a robust assortment, we were able to gain a lot more signal from a modest investment in marketing. 

What I learned is that, at that stage, we simply did not have enough data to draw big conclusions. We were reacting emotionally to a tiny sample size. The lesson for me was that in the earliest days of a company, you have to be careful not to confuse limited data with a definitive answer about whether something is a good idea or not. 

Could you tell me a story that illustrates a lesson you learned?

Minted’s crowdsourcing was my side project. I built it at night with a college student I found on Rent-A-Coder. Today, we’re a 20,000-person creative community. 

Of the $2.5 million we raised in our angel round, I spent less than $100,000 on the thing I most wanted to build. For some reason, what was calling out to me was to start a design competition that would let unknown designers submit their work, with the winners’ work sold on Minted. This was not a logical idea, and investors were understandably counseling me against it.

At the time, the playbook was simple: put established brands online and make shopping more convenient. Crowdsourcing was still a fringe idea in Silicon Valley. 

I’d tell investors the designs could be better if we went with unknown artists, but it was hard to quantify. But how do you prove “better design” to someone looking at a spreadsheet? 

But I couldn’t let it go. I was drawn to the idea that extraordinary talent was hidden everywhere, waiting for a chance to be seen. So after the Minted team went home, I built it at night with a 20-year-old college student in Oregon. 

It’s interesting that what calls to you from a gut perspective is sometimes the right move as an entrepreneur, even if you can’t prove your hunch. 

What is one mistake you made while building Minted and how did you address it? 

My biggest mistakes were usually making “safer” choices — safer product mix, safer capital planning, safer interpretation of early results, safer org design — while the real upside came from leaning harder into what was unusual about Minted. 

What were some of the first steps you took to get the business off the ground? 

I founded this business entirely on my own, so the first thing I had to do was figure out how to build a small team but conserve cash so that we could get to breakeven. This involved finding contract and part-time help, and also hiring almost entirely people who had just graduated from college. I had to think of ways to retain people, and in one case, I even gave a finance employee a ‘co-founder’ title about two years after they started at the company. 

What are some tactics you used to grow? 

I realized that there were small remnant ads at the back of women’s magazines like Domino and Cookie, which reached our target customer, found out which agency sold these, and told them that I’d be the buyer of last resort—to call me if they had last-minute, heavily discounted space available. When they called, my designer and I would write and create a print ad in about 2 hours and get it to them. 

What’s some hard, concrete advice you have for founders? 

I’d be very cautious about starting a company unless it has some type of inherent distribution, virality, or other flywheel built into the product itself. 

Also, try to shut out the distraction of caring too much about what other people think of you. I think that entrepreneurship requires you not to care about that so much. 

When it comes to this specific business, what is something you’ve found particularly challenging or surprising? 

One of the biggest surprises of entrepreneurship was how much it becomes a people, management, and leadership job, not just a product job. Even though I start companies to create great products, I’ve found myself thrust into the position of a leader and even a role model, someone people are looking to for clarity, help, and inspiration. At first, I really resisted and almost resented this part of the job—after all, I’m not a morning person, do I actually have to smile at everyone before I’ve had coffee?—but I have now made peace with this, and I am happy making a meaningful impact on someone’s career and life.

If you could go back in your business journey and change one thing about it, what would it be? 

I have underestimated how important alignment is—on values, motives, and control—before success makes those things matter enormously. If I could do one thing differently, I’d be even more intentional at the start: about who I built with, and whether everyone was truly in it for the same reasons. 

川普頒美最高科學榮譽

GCIOSGF Newsletter 會訊：

美國白宮表示，總統川普今天將頒發美國最高科學榮譽，科技大亨馬斯克、黃仁勳和蘇姿丰等科技業領袖將獲表揚；前美國職棒大聯盟（MLB）投手克萊門斯則將獲頒「總統自由勳章」。

綜合法新社和路透社報導，Google共同創辦人布林（Sergey Brin）、輝達（Nvidia）執行長黃仁勳以及超微（AMD）執行長蘇姿丰，將在「科學：嶄新的黃金時代」（Science: A New Golden Age）高峰會上獲頒「國家科學獎章」（National Medal of Science）。

電腦業大亨戴爾（Michael Dell）及微軟（Microsoft）執行長納德拉（Satya Nadella），則將獲頒其領域最高榮譽「國家技術與創新獎章」（National Medal of Technology and Innovation）。

白宮發言人休斯頓（Liz Huston）今天聲明指出：「川普政府感謝這些傑出科學與科技領袖所做出的貢獻。這些獲獎者正協助確保美國持續引領全球創新。」

太空探索科技公司（SpaceX）及特斯拉（Tesla）負責人馬斯克（Elon Musk）去年因率領政府效率部（Department of Government Efficiency）推動削減政府支出而與川普交惡後，如今已重獲川普信任。

上個月，馬斯克與黃仁勳都出席了川普為中國國家主席習近平舉行的國宴。包括兩人在內的多名科技業領袖上週前往白宮參加會談。在會中，這些科技業高層承諾將針對人工智慧（AI）可能帶來的威脅，建立自我監管機制。

PS：馬斯克重返川普政府　共同領導五角大廈未來戰爭研究

川普駁斥AI可能摧毀人類的警告，並堅稱AI對他第二任期所稱的美國經濟「黃金時代」至關重要。

此外，川普今天表示，他將向前美國職棒大聯盟MLB投手克萊門斯（Roger Clemens）頒發「總統自由勳章」（Presidential Medal of Freedom），這是美國總統所能頒發的最高級別平民榮譽。

克萊門斯是川普的友人，兩人曾一起打高爾夫球。克萊門斯被認為是MLB歷史上最偉大的投手之一，但由於外界懷疑他曾使用提升運動表現的禁藥，棒球記者並未將他選入棒球名人堂。

克萊門斯否認使用禁藥，並曾因被指控向國會撒謊而接受審判，最終獲判無罪。

川普質疑克萊門斯為何未能獲得棒球界的最高榮譽，表示將透過頒發「總統自由勳章」來彌補。

克萊門斯說，「首先，我真的非常震驚」，但表示如果要獲得這項殊榮，希望由川普親自頒發。

克萊門斯目前經營慈善基金會，但最廣為人知的仍是他棒球生涯的成就。他曾7度贏得賽揚獎（Cy Young Award），成為MLB史上獲得這項最佳投手獎項最多次的球員。

失智問題探討

GCIOSGF Newsletter 會訊：

轉載

編按：超高齡社會來臨，隨著平均壽命延長，你我未來罹患失智症機率愈高？一篇刊登於頂尖醫學期刊《JAMA》，追蹤 1984 年到 2024 年美國老年人失智盛行率變化的調查研究顛覆預言：美國 40 年間同齡長者失智率大降 2／3！某大學醫院影像醫學部兼任主治醫師指出，失智並非老化的必然宿命，大腦老化關鍵在於「世代生活型態」的累積。

在門診或演講的 Q&A 時，我時常會感受到許多人的焦慮：我的工作壓力很大，身處的環境汙染嚴重，加上平均壽命延長了，那我得失智的風險會不會比我的父母高很多啊？

這個問題背後，其實藏著一個大多數人從未細想過的假設——我們理所當然地認為，隨著平均壽命愈來愈長、老年人口愈來愈多，罹患失智症的人也會愈來愈多。再考慮生活環境的汙染問題，我們每個人老年後失智的風險，可能是逐漸上揚。畢竟，老化是不可逆的，大腦的退化似乎也理應如此。

然而，最近我讀到一篇發表於《JAMA》的文章，卻讓我重新思考了這個假設本身是否成立。這篇文章的作者是美國杜克大學的精算學者斯塔拉德（Eric Stallard），他花了將近十年時間反覆核對自己的資料，只因為那些數字實在顛覆了他原本的預期。「失智海嘯」的預言，建立在一個沒被檢驗過的假設上

先談談大家熟悉的悲觀敘事。戰後嬰兒潮世代即將邁入高齡，2025 至 2050 年間，美國 80 歲以上人口將倍增，95 歲以上族群更會成長至現在的 3 倍。

如果失智症在特定年齡的發生機率維持不變，那麼光是人口結構的變化，就足以讓失智人口在 25 年內增加 2 到 3 倍。這也是為什麼「失智海嘯」這個說法，長期以來被視為近乎必然的未來。

但斯塔拉德的研究，卻指出這個推算裡藏著一個關鍵的、卻很少被檢驗的前提：它假設「年齡別失智盛行率」是一個固定不變的數字，彷彿 85 歲的人罹患失智症的機率，在 1980 年代和 2020 年代是一樣的

❝事實並非如此。❞

調查：40年間，美國年齡別失智盛行率下降了三分之二

斯塔拉德團隊分析了 3 個具全國代表性的長期調查，追蹤 1984 年到 2024 年美國老年人的失智盛行率變化。結果顯示，在校正年齡之後，失智症的盛行率以每年 2.5% 至 3% 的速度下降，累積 40 年下來，降幅高達約 2／3，而且到了觀察期的尾端，這個下降趨勢並沒有減緩的跡象。

用具體的數字來說明或許更有感覺：

40 年前，在 85 到 89 歲的美國人之中，大約每 10 人就有 3 人罹患失智症；到了 2024 年，這個比例已經降到 1／10 左右。

同樣是 85 到 89 歲，1895 至 1899 年出生的世代，失智比例約三成；而 1935 至 1939 年出生的世代，到了同樣的年紀，比例只剩下一成上下。

研究調查：美國老年人失智症盛行率變化（1984 vs 2024）

比較維度 1984 年

（40年前） 2024 年 變化幅度

出生世代 1895 – 1899年 1935 – 1939年 間隔 40 年

同齡長者

85-89 歲

盛行率 約 30%

（每 10 人約 3 人） 約 10%

（每 10 人約 1 人） 相對降 66.7%

（約 2／3 ）

年齡校正

年降速 基準年

（100%） 每年維持

2.5 % – 3 %

穩定下降 40 年累計降幅

約 2／3

趨勢特徵 — 觀察期尾端

未見趨緩跡象 持續穩定

下降

資料整理：健康遠見編輯部

這不是單一研究的孤例。瑞典、荷蘭、英國、法國的資料也呈現類似的下降趨勢。一項涵蓋美國與歐洲七個世代研究、近 5 萬人的整合分析發現，1988 年到 2015 年間，失智症的發生率每 10 年下降約 13%。換句話說，這是一個跨國、跨研究方法、持續了數十年的一致現象，而不是統計上的雜訊或巧合。

我覺得特別值得留意的是這個現象背後的性質，它主要是一種「世代效應」，而不是「個人變好了」。也就是說，晚出生的世代，走到相同的年紀時，罹患失智症的風險本來就比早出生的世代來得低。這意味著，我們一直以來對「老化必然帶來失智風險上升」的想像，某種程度上可能算錯了帳，算錯的不是老化本身，而是我們對「風險固定不變」這個前提的信任。為什麼失智率會下降？答案還不完整，但輪廓已經浮現

老實說，研究者目前還無法完全解釋這個下降趨勢背後的機制，但幾條線索已經逐漸清晰。教育普及程度的提高、吸菸率的下降、他汀類藥物廣泛用於控制膽固醇、憂鬱症治療的進步、高血壓控制的改善，都被認為是可能的貢獻因素。這些改變大多發生在人生的早、中期。換句話說，很可能是幾十年前的生活條件與醫療環境，悄悄決定了一個人晚年大腦的命運。

這裡也呼應了《刺胳針》失智症委員會近年整理出的 14 項可改變風險因子，涵蓋教育、聽力、視力、心血管健康、社交孤立等面向，估計約可解釋全球近半數的失智症成因。我在先前的文章裡也談過這個部分，這裡就不再重複細節，但值得強調的是：這些世代之間的差異，某種程度上正是這些可改變因子長期累積的具體證明。它不是理論，而是已經寫進數十年真實數據裡的結果。不過，我認為誠實地看待這個趨勢，也必須承認它並非放諸四海皆準。部分研究顯示，日本以及美國非裔族群的失智盛行率並未同步下降，甚至持平或略微上升。肥胖、糖尿病等因子的盛行率上升，也可能在某些族群中抵銷掉部分的進步。這提醒我們，這股「退潮」的趨勢目前主要出現在特定國家與族群，而背後的機轉、以及它是否能持續，都還需要更多元、更具代表性的資料來驗證。

這對我們意味著什麼？

我常在診間提醒病人一句話：基因或許影響起跑點，但生活方式會大大改變終點。這次的世代數據，其實從另一個角度印證了同樣的道理，只是尺度拉得更長、更宏觀，不是某一個人透過幾年的努力改變了自己的大腦，而是整個世代、透過幾十年公共衛生與生活條件的累積改善，共同把風險的基準線往下推。這帶給我們一個務實但重要的訊息：失智症的風險並不是一個我們只能被動承受的宿命數字，而是一個會隨著我們如何對待自己的身體與大腦持續變動的量。

研究者也指出一個看似細微、實則深具意義的算術：失智症在 70 歲之後大約每 5 年風險就會翻倍，但反過來說，只要能把平均發病的時間點往後延遲 5 年，總體病例數就可能減少約一半。換句話說，我們不見得需要「消滅」失智症，光是「延後」它，就足以帶來巨大的改變。

也因此，在愛腦中心，我們始終認為腦齡評估與生活方式介入的意義，不在於承諾某種奇蹟式的逆轉，而在於幫助每個人及早看清楚自己當下的大腦狀態，把這場原本以幾十年為單位、由世代默默完成的改變，提前放進個人可以掌握的時間表裡。

結語：不是盲目樂觀，而是重新看待「老化」這件事

我想這份研究帶給我最大的啟發，並不是要我們就此放下戒心，以為失智症已經是過去式的問題。事實上，隨著老年人口持續增加，失智症的總病例數在可預見的未來仍會上升，只是增幅遠低於過去的悲觀推算。

真正值得我們重新思考的，是那個藏在悲觀預言底下、長期被視為理所當然的假設：老化帶來的風險，是固定不變的。40 年的世代數據告訴我們，這個假設並不成立。

大腦老化的軌跡，其實一直在被人類集體的生活條件、醫療進步與公共衛生政策，緩慢卻確實地改寫。這不是一個關於奇蹟的故事，而是一個關於「累積」的故事，這正是我們每一個人此刻仍握有主導權的部分。

摩爾定律（Moore's Law）

GCIOSGF Newsletter 會訊:

Edit: AI 

 摩爾定律（Moore's Law）是由英特爾（Intel）共同創辦人戈登·摩爾（Gordon Moore）於 1965提出的觀察，指積體電路上的電晶體數量大約每 18 至 24 個月會倍增一次，同時運算效能增加、成本則下降。 

---

經典摩爾定律的核心

起源與修正：摩爾在 1965 年提出此預測，隨後在 1975 年修正為每約兩年翻倍一次。
本質：它從來不是一條物理定律，而是半導體產業用來設定研發與生產目標的經濟與工程共識。
深遠影響：推動了個人電腦、智慧型手機、網際網路與各類數位裝置的快速普及與小型化。 

---

走向「後摩爾定律時代」與轉變

隨著電晶體尺寸不斷縮小、逼近原子物理極限（例如漏電與量子穿隧效應），傳統單純縮小製程來提升效能的方式已面臨瓶頸： 

物理極限與緩慢放緩：業界公認傳統物理微縮正走到尾聲。輝達（NVIDIA）執行長黃仁勳等產業領袖也曾表示傳統摩爾定律已近尾聲。 
進入「超越摩爾定律」（Beyond Moore / 超摩爾時代）：
• 先進封裝與 3D IC：透過 CoWoS、3D 晶片堆疊技術延續效能。
• 系統與架構創新：結合專用加速器（如 AI GPU）、高速互連技術（如 NVLink）、液冷系統來突破單一晶片算力限制。
• 新材料與新物理：探索碳基、二維材料或量子運算等替代方案。 

Moore's Law, proposed in 1965 by Intel co-founder Gordon Moore, states that the number of transistors in an integrated circuit roughly doubles every 18 to 24 months, while computing performance increases and costs decrease.

The core of the classic Moore's Law:

• Origin and Revisions: Moore made this prediction in 1965, subsequently revising it to approximately doubling every two years in 1975.

• Essence: It has never been a physical law, but rather an economic and engineering consensus used by the semiconductor industry to set research and development and production goals.

• Profound Impact: It has driven the rapid proliferation and miniaturization of personal computers, smartphones, the internet, and various digital devices.

Towards the "Post-Moore's Law Era" and Transformation

As transistor sizes continue to shrink, approaching the limits of atomic physics (e.g., leakage current and quantum tunneling), the traditional approach of simply shrinking manufacturing processes to improve performance is facing bottlenecks:

• Physical Limits and Slowing Down: It is widely acknowledged that traditional physical miniaturization is nearing its end. Industry leaders such as NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang have also stated that traditional Moore's Law is nearing its end.

• Entering the "Beyond Moore Era":

• Advanced Packaging and 3D ICs: Sustaining performance through CoWoS and 3D chip stacking technologies.

• System and Architectural Innovation: Combining dedicated accelerators (such as AI GPUs), high-speed interconnect technologies (such as NVLink), and liquid cooling systems to overcome the limitations of single-chip computing power.

• New Materials and New Physics: Exploring alternatives such as carbon-based materials, two-dimensional materials, or quantum computing.

DEFINITION 

Moore’s Law predicts that computing power will increase significantly as the number of transistors on microchips doubles approximately every two years, driving technological advancement.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Moore’s Law, originally an observation by Gordon E. Moore in 1965, asserts that the number of transistors on a microchip doubles approximately every two years, leading to more powerful and cost-effective computing power.

This phenomenon has significantly influenced technological progress, enabling innovations in computing, mobile devices, electronic games, and even industries like healthcare and transportation.

As transistors approach atomic dimensions, the physical limitations of further miniaturization pose challenges, potentially signaling Moore’s Law’s natural end in the 2020s.

Despite potential limits, advancements in software, cloud computing, and emerging technologies like quantum computing may continue to drive progress beyond the traditional scope of Moore’s Law.

Get personalized, AI-powered answers built on 27+ years of trusted expertise.

What are semiconductor manufacturing's challenges overcoming physical limits?

How does the semiconductor industry plan future product releases?

Why is moore's law still a guiding maxim?

What are semiconductor manufacturing's challenges overcoming physical limits?

How does the semiconductor industry plan future product releases?

Exploring the Impact of Moore’s Law on Technology

Moore’s Law, first posited by Gordon E. Moore in 1965, observes that the number of transistors on microchips doubles roughly every two years while costs decrease. Not a fundamental law of science, this observation has nonetheless been a guiding principle in the semiconductor industry for nearly six decades. It predicts that as transistors become smaller, computing technology will continually advance, becoming faster, more energy-efficient, and more cost-effective over time. Today, Moore’s insight remains a critical benchmark for technological progress, influencing everything from smartphones to data centers.

Understanding Moore’s Law

In 1965, Intel co-founder Gordon E. Moore noticed that the number of transistors on a chip had doubled between 1960 and 1965 at minimal cost. He initially predicted chips would have 65,000 components by 1975, later revising this to a doubling every two years.

Gordon Moore did not call his observation “Moore’s Law,” nor did he set out to create a “law.” Moore made that statement based on noticing emerging trends in chip manufacturing at Fairchild Semiconductor. Eventually, Moore’s insight became a well-known adage, “Moore’s Law.” In an interview in 1975, he claimed his friend, Dr. Carver Mead from CalTech, was responsible for the name.

Intel. "Excerpts from 'A Conversation with Gordon Moore: Moore’s Law.'" Page 5.

Over the decades, Moore’s Law guided the semiconductor industry in planning and setting R&D targets, becoming a key driver of technological and economic growth in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

IMPORTANT

Moore’s Law implies that computers, machines that run on computers, and computing power all become smaller, faster, and cheaper with time as processes become more efficient and components smaller and faster.

The Enduring Influence of Moore’s Law

Almost 60 years later, we still feel the lasting impact and benefits of Moore’s Law in many ways.

Moore’s Law in Computing: Shrinking Transistors and Expanding Power

As transistors shrink, computers become faster and smaller. These tiny structures are printed on sheets of carbon and silicon, allowing more transistors in a space, which boosts computer efficiency. Over time, the cost of powerful computers has dropped annually due to lower labor and semiconductor costs.

Advancements in Electronics: A Testament to Moore’s Law

Practically every facet of a high-tech society benefits from Moore’s Law in action. Mobile devices, such as smartphones and computer tablets, would not work without tiny processors; neither would video games, spreadsheets, accurate weather forecasts, and global positioning systems (GPS).

Diverse Industries Transformed by Moore’s Law

Moreover, smaller and faster computers improve transportation, health care, education, and energy production—to name but a few of the industries that have progressed because of the increased power of computer chips.

The Future of Moore’s Law: Challenges and Predictions

Some experts predict Moore’s Law will hit physical limits in the 2020s. Chip-makers face rising costs to maintain standards and challenges in cooling many components in small spaces.

 For instance, if you keep shrinking components, you can put more in a one-inch square chip. The more you put in that square inch, the hotter it gets and the harder it is to cool it.

In a 2005 interview, Moore himself admitted that “...the fact that materials are made of atoms is the fundamental limitation and it’s not that far away...We’re pushing up against some fairly fundamental limits, so one of these days we’re going to have to stop making things smaller.”

Overcoming the Challenges Limiting Moore’s Law

The fact that Moore’s Law may be approaching its natural end is perhaps most painfully present at the chip manufacturers themselves; as these companies are saddled with the task of building ever-more-powerful chips against the reality of physical limitations. Even Intel is competing with itself and its industry to create what ultimately may not be possible.

In 2012, Intel introduced a 22-nanometer processor, featuring the world’s smallest and most advanced mass-produced transistors.

 By 2014, they launched a 14nm chip and, after delays, in 2024, started using a large machine to develop technology advancing Moore’s Law.

FAST FACT

For perspective, one nanometer is one billionth of a meter, smaller than the wavelength of visible light. The diameter of an atom ranges from about 0.1 to 0.5 nanometers.

Future Innovations Beyond Moore’s Law

The prospect of a highly connected future presents both challenges and benefits. For over 50 years, shrinking transistors have enhanced computing, but new ways are needed to boost capabilities. Future improvements may rely on software, cloud computing, wireless tech, IoT, and quantum physics.

Despite the growing concerns around privacy and security, the advantages of ever-smarter computing technology can help keep us healthier, safer, and more productive in the long run.

What Is Moore’s Law?

In 1965, Gordon Moore posited that roughly every two years, the number of transistors on microchips will double. Commonly referred to as Moore’s Law, this phenomenon suggests that computational progress will become significantly faster, smaller, and more efficient over time.

 Widely regarded as one of the hallmark theories of the 21st century, Moore’s Law carries significant implications for the future of technological progress—along with its possible limitations.

How Has Moore’s Law Impacted Computing?

Moore’s Law has directly influenced the progress of computing power by creating a goal for chip makers to achieve. In 1965, Moore predicted that there would be 65,000 transistors per chip by 1975.

 In 2025, chip makers can put 50 billion transistors on a chip the size of a fingernail.

Is Moore’s Law Coming to an End?

According to some, Moore’s Law will end sometime in the 2020s.

 If components continue to shrink, physical limits will be reached during this decade because it’s unlikely that transistors smaller than atoms can be printed. There is only 1.5nm of space left to print on, depending on the element.

The Bottom Line

Moore’s Law began as an observation made by Gordon Moore in 1965 that the number of components on a microchip appeared to increase by a factor of two every year. He predicted that it was possible that by 1975, there would be 65,000 components on an integrated circuit. In 1975, he revised his observation and predicted that the number of components would double every two years. This prediction remained fairly accurate for nearly 50 years—and in 2025, engineers and scientists are still attempting to keep up; they have succeeded in printing transistors almost the size of atoms.

咖啡有助健康

GCIOSGF Newsletter 會訊:

別再亂喝咖啡！5萬人研究揭密「這一種類」更健康：有助健康老化、延緩衰退

一杯咖啡不只是提神飲品，選擇不同的沖泡方式，可能也會影響身體老化的速度。最新研究發現，相較於即溶咖啡，經常飲用「過濾咖啡」的人，可能擁有較健康的生物老化指標，顯示咖啡種類與健康老化之間可能存在關聯。不過研究團隊也提醒，目前研究屬於觀察性研究，只能發現相關性，並不能證明喝某一種咖啡一定能延緩老

近5萬人研究：過濾咖啡與較慢生物老化相關

這項發表於《npj Science of Food》的研究，分析英國生物銀行（UK Biobank）近4.9萬名成年人的資料，平均年齡約56歲，研究人員比較不同咖啡沖泡方式與生物老化指標之間的關係。

研究評估三項與老化相關的指標，包括：

• 白血球端粒長度（rLTL）：反映細胞老化程度的重要指標

• PhenoAge生物年齡加速：透過血液健康數據估算身體老化速度

• Klemera-Doubal生物年齡（KDM-BA）：另一種評估生理老化程度的方法

研究結果發現，習慣飲用過濾咖啡者，其生物年齡加速程度較低，部分老化相關指標也較佳。

相較之下，大量飲用即溶咖啡者，則呈現較快生物老化的相關趨勢，且在年長者、男性及吸菸族群中更明顯。

為什麼過濾咖啡可能比較健康？

研究人員推測，關鍵可能與咖啡中的天然油脂成分有關。咖啡豆含有兩種天然化合物——咖啡醇（cafestol）與咖啡豆醇（kahweol），屬於二萜類化合物。這些物質具有抗氧化等特性，但攝取過多時，可能提高血液中的低密度脂蛋白膽固醇（LDL，俗稱壞膽固醇）。

使用紙濾方式沖泡咖啡時，濾紙可以去除大部分油性成分，使進入咖啡中的咖啡醇與咖啡豆醇含量降低，因此可能對心血管健康較有利；相較之下，法式濾壓壺、煮咖啡或土耳其咖啡等未經紙過濾的方式，可能保留較多這類成分。

喝咖啡適量最好，別忽略整體生活習慣

過去研究也發現，適量飲用咖啡可能與較低的心血管疾病風險及死亡風險相關，但咖啡對健康的影響，仍受到飲食、運動、睡眠、抽菸及飲酒等因素影響。

專家提醒，咖啡本身並非是抗老神器，想維持健康老化，仍需搭配均衡飲食、規律運動與良好生活作息。

此外，有些族群飲用咖啡需特別注意，例如：容易心悸或心律不整者、胃食道逆流患者、睡眠品質不佳者，以及對咖啡因敏感者，都應依自身狀況調整飲用量。

根據這項研究顯示，咖啡的健康影響可能不只是攝取量不同，沖泡方式也可能扮演角色，相較於未過濾咖啡或大量即溶咖啡，紙濾咖啡可能更符合健康老化的方向。不過，維持年輕健康的關鍵，仍在於長期累積的生活習慣，而不是單靠每天一杯咖啡。

Stop Drinking Coffee Randomly! A Study of 50,000 People Reveals "This Type" is Healthier: Promotes Healthy Aging and Slows Down Decline

A cup of coffee is more than just a pick-me-up; choosing different brewing methods may also affect the rate of aging. A recent study found that compared to instant coffee, people who regularly drink "filtered coffee" may have healthier bio-aging indicators, suggesting a possible link between coffee type and healthy aging. However, the research team also cautioned that this is currently an observational study, which only reveals a correlation and cannot prove that drinking a particular type of coffee will definitely slow down aging.

Nearly 50,000 People Studyed: Filtered Coffee Associated with Slower Bio-Aging

This study, published in *npj Science of Food*, analyzed data from nearly 49,000 adults at the UK Biobank, with an average age of approximately 56. Researchers compared the relationship between different coffee brewing methods and bio-aging indicators.

The study assessed three aging-related indicators, including:

Telomeric length (rLTL): an important indicator reflecting the degree of cellular aging;

PhenoAge: an estimate of the rate of aging through blood health data;

Klemera-Doubal biological age (KDM-BA): another method for assessing the degree of physiological aging.

The results showed that those who habitually drink filtered coffee had a lower rate of accelerated biological aging and better performance on some aging-related indicators.

In contrast, those who drink large amounts of instant coffee showed a faster trend towards biological aging, which was more pronounced in older adults, men, and smokers.

Why might filtered coffee be healthier?

Researchers speculate that the key may be related to the natural oil components in coffee. Coffee beans contain two natural compounds—cafestol and kahweol—which belong to the diterpenoid class of compounds. These substances have antioxidant properties, but excessive intake may increase low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL, commonly known as bad cholesterol) in the blood.

When brewing coffee using a paper filter, the filter paper removes most of the oily components, reducing the levels of cafestol and bean alcohol in the coffee, which may be more beneficial for cardiovascular health. In contrast, methods like French press, brewed coffee, or Turkish coffee, which do not use paper filters, may retain more of these components.

Moderation is key when drinking coffee; don't neglect your overall lifestyle.

Past studies have also found that moderate coffee consumption may be associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality. However, the health effects of coffee are still influenced by factors such as diet, exercise, sleep, smoking, and alcohol consumption.

Experts remind us that coffee itself is not an anti-aging miracle. To maintain healthy aging, it is still necessary to combine it with a balanced diet, regular exercise, and a healthy lifestyle.

Furthermore, certain groups need to be particularly careful when drinking coffee, such as those prone to palpitations or arrhythmia, those with acid reflux, those with poor sleep quality, and those sensitive to caffeine. They should adjust their consumption according to their individual circumstances.

This study suggests that the health effects of coffee may not solely stem from differences in consumption volume; brewing methods may also play a role. Compared to unfiltered coffee or large quantities of instant coffee, paper-filtered coffee may be more aligned with healthy aging. However, the key to maintaining youthful health lies in long-term, accumulated lifestyle habits, not simply in relying on a daily cup of coffee.