北京时间?1月11日晚

，2025年天下羽联天下巡回赛马来西亚羽毛球果真赛竣事第五日争取

，中国队在这个角逐日取??得了5胜3负

，石宇奇、王祉怡、陈柏阳/刘毅、贾一凡/张殊贤和凤凰组合划分?晋级5个单项决赛

，而李诗沣、圣坛组合和李罗组合被镌汰。

2025年马来西亚羽毛球果真赛于北京时间1月7-12日在马来西亚吉隆坡举行。本站为2025赛季第一站天下羽联巡?回赛超等1000赛事

，因此

，国羽共派出?了5位男单选手、3位女单选手、4对男双?组合、3对女双组合和4对混双组合参赛。

第五角逐日举行的是5个?单?项10场半决赛的争取。当日有国羽球员出战的角逐共6场。

在男单半决赛的一场国羽德比中

，头号种子石宇奇用时1小时05分钟

，打满三局

，在先输一局的情形下

，愈战愈勇

，连扳两局

，以2-1（16-21/21-5/21-12）逆转队友、7号种子李诗沣

，率先突入决赛。他将与2号种子、丹麦选手安东森和8号种子、日本选手奈良冈功大之间的胜者争冠。

女片面

，2号种子王祉怡稳扎稳打

，用时3?9分钟

，直落两局

，以2-0（21-16/21-12）横扫泰国选手波恩皮查

，顺遂跻身半决赛。她将在决赛?中与头号种子、韩国选手安洗莹争取冠军——后者用时50分钟

，也是连下两城

，以2-0（21-14/21-18）战胜另一?位泰国选?手因达农

，率先晋级决赛。

在男双半决赛中

，陈柏阳/刘毅酣战1小时17分钟

，打满三局

，在首局2分惜败后

，气焰如虹连扳两局

，以2-1（2426/21-16/?21-15）逆转战胜马来西亚?本土组合万炜聪/
？

，首进超等1000赛事决赛。他们将与韩国组合金元昊/徐承宰争冠——后者用时40分钟

，直落两局

，以2-0（21-10/21-15）轻取7号种子、印度组合兰基雷迪/谢提

，率先晋级决赛。

女双方面

，在一场国羽内战中

，贾一凡/张殊贤耗时1小时31分钟

，打满三局

，在先输一局的情形下

，连扳两局

，以2-1（19-21/21-16/21-17）逆转队友、头号种子刘圣书/谭宁

，艰难跻身决赛。而4号种子李怡婧/罗徐敏酣战1小时01分钟

，但仍连输两局

，以0-2（13-21/21-23）不敌日本组合福岛由纪/松本麻佑

，无缘决赛。这样

，贾一凡/张殊贤将与??福岛由纪/松本麻佑争取冠军。

?在混双半决赛中

，头号种子冯?彦哲/黄东萍用时50分钟

，连下两城

，以2-0（21-19/21-14）轻取3号种子、马来西?亚本土组合陈堂杰/杜依蔚

，强势晋级决赛

，将与泰国组合德差波/苏皮萨拉争冠——?后者酣战1小时03分钟

，打满三局

，在先输一局的情形下

，连扳两局

，以?2-1（17-21/21?-12/21-16）逆转战胜4号种子、马来西亚本土组合吴埙阀/赖洁敏

，率先晋级决赛。

（清泠）

• AformerNorthernTerritorychiefministerwhoreturnedlandtoAboriginaltraditionasCountryLiberalPartygovernmentin1989return,000hectaresofsub-tropicalwildernesswaslaterrenamedNitmilukNationalPark,withthedecade-longprocessoccurringdespitefietooccupyandusetheCobourgPeninsula,,now81,saidtheideaofembeddingaVoicetoParliamentintheConstitutionwronglyimpliedAboriginalpeoplewerentbeinglistenedto. ImahardNoontheVoice,(left)whoreturnedlandtoAboriginaltraditionasCountryLiberalPartygovernmentin1989returnedwhatwasthenknownasKatherineGorgeNationalParktotheJawoynpeople(heispicturedwith PhyllisWinyjorrotjand JeffreyMcDonald)The292,000hectaresoftropicalwildernesswaslaterrenamedNitmilukNationalPark(pictured),withthedecade-longprocessoccurringdespitefierceoppositionfromnon-AboriginalpeopleinthenearbytownofKatherine: RayMartinhasstoodbythecontroversiallanguageheusedataYesrally,wherehedescribedNovotersasdinosaursandd***heads,,whohasAboriginalancestry,toldYesvoterstheworldwouldbewatchingAustraliawhenthereferendumcomesaroundonOctober14Ibelievethatthecase,ortheargument,thatwehaveneverlistenedtoAboriginalpeopleorconsultedthemonwhattheywantisjustabsurd. MrPerron,bestknownforintroducingworld-firstvoluntaryeuthanasialawsin1995,supportsrecognisingAboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderperaceafarmoreprominentfeatureofAustralia,theVoicetoParliamentwouldawardspecialprivilegesbasedsolelyonrace. MrPerron,wholedtheNorthernTerritoryfrom1988to1995,saidaconstitutionally-enshrinedVoicewouldbedominatedbyactivistswithlittleconnectiontoremote,Aboriginalcommunitieswheretherearehigherratesofpoverty.TheVoiceisnotgoingtobecomprisedofpeoplefromremoteareas,apartfromasmatteringofthem,lAustraliacouldbeoverlooked. Whateveritscomposition,itsgoingtobelargely,urbanorsemi-urbanAboriginalpeoplewhodonthavetheissuestheyhaveatManingrida,Papunyaor Yuendumu,MrPerronsaid.Theseplaceswhichare,byandlarge,sadplacestovisit.Isaythatregretfullyafterhavingbeeningovernmentfor21years,chiefministerforsevenandtriedbloodyhardtodowhatwecould. MrPerron,now81,saidtheideaofembeddingaVoicetoParliamentintheConstitutionwronglyimpliedAboriginalpeoplewerentbeinglistenedtoMrPerron,whonowlivesontheSunshineCoast,saidtherewasnowanindustryofpeopleidentifyingasAboriginalwhodidntbattlepoverty.Ithinkthatswithoutquestion,hesaid.ThelastCensus,therewasamassiveincreaseinpeoplewhotickedtheboxthatidentifiedasAboriginal,whopresumably,previouslydidnt.Isupposeyoucouldbekindandsay,Well,theyredoingthatbecausetheatmospherehaschangedandtheynowfeelmorecomfortableasidentifyingasAboriginal,butIthinktheresadegreeofopportunismthere.Inthe2021Census,thenationalproport, 812,728people,from649,,,withthisareaofAustraliahometomoreremotecommunities. MrPerronquestionedwhypeopleidentifyingasIndigenous,wholivedcomfortably,shouldbeentitledtospecialtreatment.Ifyouseesomeonewhoson$150,000ayear,livingquitecomfortably,whyshouldtheygetcheapticketstotheOperaHouseforgoodnesssake,hesaid.Itbeggarsbeliefinmyview. MrPerron,wholedtheNorthernTerritoryfrom1988to1995,saidaconstitutionally-enshrinedVoicewouldbedominatedbyactivistswithlittleconnectiontoremote,Aboriginalcommunitieswheretherearehigherratesofpoverty(picturedarewomenatManingridainWestArnhemLand)HefearedtheconcernsofVoiceactivistsinurbanareas(SydneyYesrallypictured)wouldovershadowtheneedsofthoseinCentralAustraliainplaceslikePapunyaorYuendumuSomeoftheNovoters,Ibelieve,willbesayingtothemselves,WhyshouldthesepeoplewhoarelivingthesamelifestyleandthesameincomeasIambeentitledtoanyparticularbenefitsthatImnotentitledto.Asforclosingthegap,MrPerronsaidIndigenouspeoplelivinginremoteareas, ofteninovercrowdedhousing,hadtomakethechoiceforthemselvestorelocatetoanurbancentre.ThereareculturalissuesinvolvedandaslongaswesupportAboriginesretainingtheirculturalpractices,becauseitsimportanttothem,weneedtounderstandthatunlesstheyaspiretoourwayoflife,thegapwillneverbeclosed,hesaid. MrPerron,bestknownforintroducingworld-firstvoluntaryeuthanasialawsin1995,supportsrecognisingAboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderpeopleintheCeraceafarmoreprominentfeatureofAustraliasfoundingdocument(picturedisNitmilukNationalPark)
• 自2000年首次进入中国
  
  ，十一年来
  
  ，“福特汽车环保奖”已经成为中国现在由企业自力运作、卓有声誉的环保奖评选活动。
• “They’re taking our jobs! They’re taking our jobs! ”[Once used by South Park to mock conservative critics of mass immigration, these lines may soon be applied to the left, as a new progressive panic over the robot economy now appears to be well underway. Fears over the rise of the robots have existed for decades, of course. But the left has recently kicked things up a notch. Bill Gates, the billionaire progressive and founder of Microsoft, caused a stir in tech circles last month by suggesting that robots ought to be taxed in order to compensate for human job losses. This followed a similar robot taxation proposal made by policymakers in the European Parliament. Calls for a robot tax comes as the pace of change begins to accelerate. Last week, we reported on “flippy,” a robot that has replaced human fast food workers at a restaurant in California. The next day, news emerged of a new startup using robots to deliver takeout food in Washington D. C. You may have thought the automation of fast food would end at ordering kiosks, but now robots will cook your food and deliver it too. They won’t ask for minimum wage increases either! The oncoming political panic should be concerning to Republicans, especially Republicans who consider themselves allies of the Trump insurgency. Donald Trump took the Rust Belt by promising to protect jobs from overzealous free trade policies and mass immigration. There was no need to mention robots, because robots were not yet a serious threat to human jobs. That may not be the case in 2020. Even if robots are not a significant threat to human jobs, Democrats have every interest in owning this issue. They lost the working class because their neoliberal “New Democrat” element prevented them from seriously addressing that constituency’s concerns. They couldn’t attack free trade and the outflow of jobs from America without attacking themselves as Hillary Clinton’s private speeches extolling the virtues of a “borderless world with open trade and open borders” attest to, the party establishment was thoroughly globalist. If Democrats wish to claw back their lost support, stoking fears over the robot economy is an attractive option. It is easy, perhaps easier, to present robots in the public imagination as a greater threat to jobs than free trade or immigration. Moreover, there would be virtually no electoral blowback from such a strategy. Robots, unlike Mexicans, do not vote. If the left wish to exploit the panic over robots for political purposes, they won’t have to look very far. Already, alarmism is everywhere: in the same month Bill Gates called for a robot tax, Elon Musk suggested that humans would have to become cyborgs to avoid going obsolete. A few weeks later, The Guardian went full doomsday, publishing claims that an obsolete working class would be subject to a “genocidal war of the rich against the poor. ” Even if they don’t go as far as genocide, predictions that robots will make humans obsolete are increasingly common. Historian Yuval Noah Harari, in his latest book, predicts the rise of a “useless class” of humans in the near future. Bestselling author and futurist Martin Ford predicts a revolt against the robot economy. Moshe Vardi, professor of Computer Science at Rice University, predicts unemployment rates of 50 per cent or more. These predictions could all be wildly inaccurate, of course. Predicting the future, whether it’s climate patterns, election results, or the future of technology, is a notoriously tricky task and frequently leaves “experts” embarrassed. But the public’s fear of robots shouldn’t be underestimated a recent poll in Australia found that 16 per cent of respondents believed their job would be automated out of existence within five years. That number is likely to grow, especially if the left decide that protecting workers from robots should be the next great political crusade. And why wouldn’t they? The proposed solutions for unemployment are things that the left already favoured. Gates and European leftwingers want a robot tax. Economics professor Noah Smith suggests redistribution of wealth from the robot economy. Martin Ford — the same author who predicts a worker’s uprising against robots — thinks a guaranteed basic income is the answer. These are all very ideas. For conservatives who want to understand what’s going on, there is an obvious parallel: global warming. Regardless of one’s opinions on the science of that topic, a very familiar pattern is emerging. First, there is the prediction of a coming apocalypse, endorsed by a consensus of experts, which feeds a smouldering public fear of what lies ahead. Then come the proposed solutions: taxation, redistribution, government intervention, and a radical overhaul of the economy. The picture could not be more tempting for the left. Protecting workers from the robopocalypse offers them an opportunity to roll back Trump’s gains among their former supporters. Sufficient public panic would also create pressure to implement many of the redistributive, policies they’ve always wanted. Last but not least, demonizing robots allows the left to assuage their guilt over abandoning the working class without conceding any ground to the Trumpist right on free trade or immigration. How are conservatives to respond to this? They won’t have much difficulty casting doubt on some of the more alarmist predictions of the left, i. e genocidal wars, but it’ll be hard to persuade people that robots aren’t replacing their jobs when virtually every McDonalds in the country now has an array of touchscreen waiters. One point that conservatives should repeatedly emphasize is that progressive policies are making jobs less viable. A robot may be expensive, but is it more expensive than a mandatory $15 minimum wage? As noted above, at least one California burger joint doesn’t think so. It must also be acknowledged that, left unchecked, globalist billionaires will certainly try to reap the profits of the robot economy while screwing over the little guy. As always, big government is likely to be their ally in this, not their enemy. As regulations on the robot economy increase, the cost of entry into the market for smaller players is likely to increase in tandem. Savvy conservatives will articulate this, and keep the focus on the fat cats who would benefit from such an arrangement. Or, to put it another way: the Republican of 2012 rails against the minimum wage, and loses. The Republican of 2016 rails against the minimum wage and globalist billionaires, and wins. The only way to really counter the growing panic over robots, of course, is to put an end to the idea that human labour is going to become obsolete. To do this, we have to look to history: every technological advance in history has resulted in the emergence of new industries, because although the advances eliminate jobs, the “eliminated” workers are then free to do other things. You can explain this in more concrete terms. The money saved by the California burger chain employing “flippy” can be invested elsewhere — in say, cancer research, or colonizing Mars. That investment creates new jobs in those sectors. And if a robot replaces those jobs too? That frees up investment to open a new theatre or museum or art studio. The idea of becoming artists and cancer researchers sounds . After all, art and science are prestige professions. But to a peasant toiling in a cold field, the job of a cook must have seemed like a prestige profession, reserved for just a few favoured servants of the local nobleman. The fact that is now seen as a lowly profession is because the real lowly professions have been eliminated by technology. Similarly, occupations we currently see as prestigious, like science and space exploration, may in the future become common. That sounds great, of course, but it’s still a difficult message to sell to the people whose jobs are at risk. In 2016, Democrats tried to convince workers that the destruction of their industries would be followed by a promised land of green jobs. Those promises fell on deaf ears — partly because they were false, but also because the message implicitly admitted that Democrats would do nothing to prevent the disappearance of existing jobs. Again and again throughout history, there have been panics that new technology will make entire classes of people obsolete. The English Luddites who smashed mechanical looms in the 18th century did so because they believed the looms were putting them out of jobs. They weren’t wrong, but they failed to understand that that new jobs would inevitably open up elsewhere. However, for the who is about to lose his job to a robot right now, that’s a difficult case to make. That’s probably why panics and backlash have accompanied virtually every major technological advance in the past two centuries. Humans just aren’t very good at learning from history. Perhaps we should get a robot to do it for us? You can follow Allum Bokhari on Twitter and add him on Facebook. Email tips and suggestions to abokhari@breitbart. com.
• 制造业PMI环比逆季节性回升0.3个点至50.1
  
  ，淡季的上行或源于政策逆周期
  
  ，后续淡季有望延续一定超季节性
  
  ，工业软件有望受益
• Anil Ambani, vice-chairman of India Petrochemicals Limited (IPCL), stayed away from a gathering of senior managers on Thursday. The move follows a decision earlier this month by Anil - the younger brother of Reliance Group president Mukesh Ambani - to resign from his post. His resignation was not accepted by his brother, who is also the boss of IPCL. The IPCL board met in Mumbai to discuss the company's results for the October-to-December quarter.