關於 after consideration中文 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

張忠謀對半導體供應鏈在地化的致詞引起矚目，我將全文的翻譯，分享給大家：

張忠謀APEC非正式領袖會議致詞全文：（中文在後）

This Informal Retreat has been called to discuss how Asia-Pacific can collaborate to move through the COVID health crisis, and to accelerate the post-COVID economic recovery. Chinese Taipei will address these two topics specifically.
On COVID-19, Chinese Taipei has had an excellent record so far. With a population of 23 million, over the last year and half, and in spite of a recent surge which has now abated, we have had a total of about fifteen thousand infected cases (.07% of the population), and 763 deaths (3 out of one hundred thousand).
We believe that our experience and know-how gained can help other APEC members. We have been, and continue to be willing to help. We have donated masks and other medical supplies to other APEC members in the past and are ready and willing to share our anti-COVID-19 know-how with you.
At the same time, WE NEED HELP! Our vaccination coverage at present is less than 20%. Although the U.S. and Japan have been generous in donating vaccines to us, and our private institutions have succeeded in procuring ten million doses of vaccines, we still need more vaccines, and need them sooner! Most other APEC members need help as well. We must ask for help from the APEC members that possess and produce more vaccines than they themselves need.
On re-vitalizing Post-COVID economy, Chinese Taipei urges free trade among APEC members and in the world, after giving consideration to vital national security needs.
In the past seven decades, free trade has enabled vibrant growth in most APEC economies. Free trade is merely a way in which each APEC economy contributes its own competitive advantage and every APEC member benefits.
Recently, however, we note with concern the tendency to want self-sufficiency or “on-shoring” of semiconductor chips. We must point out that in the past many decades free trade has greatly helped the advance of semiconductor technology. In turn, the ever greater complexity of the technology has caused the supply chain to go “off-shore”.
It would be highly impractical to try to turn back the clock. If it is tried, cost will go up and technology advance may slow. What may happen is that after hundreds of billions and many years have been spent, the result will still be a not-quite-self-sufficient, and high-cost supply chain.
We do recognize national security concerns, and believe that for security applications, a self-sufficient supply chain within one’s own borders is prudent. However, for the much larger civilian market, a supply chain substantially based on free trade system is by far the best approach.
In summary, on COVID-19, Chinese Taipei can help, is ready and willing to help with its know-how, but also needs more vaccines sooner, along with many other APEC members. On Post-COVID economic re-vitalization, Chinese Taipei urges free trade, after giving consideration to vital national security concerns.

（中文翻譯）

此次非正式領袖會議召開的目的是討論亞太地區應如何合作以度過新型冠狀病毒（COVID-19）疫情危機，並加速疫後經濟復甦。中華台北將就這兩個議題表達看法。
面對新型冠狀病毒（COVID-19）疫情，中華台北迄今維持傑出防疫紀錄。我們有兩千三百萬人口，儘管近期疫情曾一度升溫，但目前業已趨緩，在過去超過一年半的時間中，總確診病例數約為一萬五千例（佔總人口0.07%），其中死亡病例數為763例（約為十萬分之三）。
相信我們在過程中得到的經驗與知識能夠協助其他APEC成員。我們持續地願意提供協助。過去我們曾捐贈口罩與其他醫療物資予其他APEC成員，現在也準備好與你們分享我們抗疫的知識。
同時，我們也需要幫助！目前我們的疫苗注射覆蓋率低於20%。雖然美國與日本已慷慨捐贈疫苗，我們的民間機構也已成功採購一千萬劑，我們仍然需要更多數量的疫苗，而且需要儘快取得！其他多數的APEC成員也需要幫助。我們需要向目前擁有並生產超過他們自身所需疫苗數量的APEC成員尋求協助。
針對疫後經濟復甦，中華台北敦促APEC成員，在考慮重要國家安全需求後，彼此間及與全球進行自由貿易。
在過去70年，自由貿易使多數APEC經濟體蓬勃發展。自由貿易僅是各APEC經濟體貢獻自己的競爭優勢，而其他APEC成員藉此受惠的方法。
然而近來，我們很關切要求「境內」半導體晶片自給自足的趨勢。我們必需指出，過去數十年的自由貿易大幅促進半導體技術發展。因此，越趨複雜的技術致使供應鏈走向「境外」。
試圖讓時光倒流是相當不切實際的，如果嘗試讓時光倒流，不僅成本將會提升以及技術的進步可能放緩。在花費了數千億與許多年的時間之後，結果仍將是無法充分自給自足且成本很高的供應鏈。
我們認同國家安全的顧慮確實存在，也相信針對國安應用，在國境內存有一個能夠自給自足的供應鏈是審慎的作法。然而，針對規模大得許多的民間市場，一個基於自由貿易體系的供應鏈是最好的作法。
總結來說，針對新型冠狀病毒（COVID-19）疫情，中華台北能夠協助，我們也願意、並準備好以自身的知識與經驗提供協助，但也和其他許多APEC成員一樣，需要儘快取得更多疫苗。關於疫後經濟復甦，中華台北敦促在考慮關鍵國家安全需求後，應該採取自由貿易。

為什麼我吃的素食是「全食物蔬食」，而不只是純素食而已呢？

首先，「全食物蔬食」（WFPB）指的是完整、未經加工的食物，也就是從土裡長出來的真食物：蔬菜、水果、全穀物、種子、堅果等。

我14年前由葷轉蛋奶素、11年前由蛋奶素轉純素，3年多前又開始吃全食物，主要有兩個原因：一，在營養學組織NutritionFacts.org工作，每天看各種有關全食物蔬食對健康益處的影片，很難不身體力行。二，其實我天生就不喜歡吃太過沈重、油膩、鹹或甜的食物，吃下去是一種很不好的體驗。

那我是無時無刻都這樣嗎？當然不了。😛 我家裡沒有油、糖或鹽，也不會買精緻穀物，所以在家做飯的時候確實是百分之百實踐全食物蔬食。要是外食，我還是不會吃炸物，也盡量避免白米、白麵條這類的，但對油、糖或鹽就沒有這麼挑惕了。要是很想吃個vegan甜甜圈或起司蛋糕時，我也不會克制自己。重點不是要時時刻刻完美，而是讓健康飲食成為習慣，然後盡力就行了。

每個人吃素的原因都不一樣。我14年前剛開始的時候，一點也不在意健康，甚至還覺得很驕傲（「看，我只在意動物，多高貴的理由」）。不過因為我總是希望不斷提升、拓展自我，在吃素吃了十多年後，更進一步吃全食物對我來說是個挺自然的選擇。吃全食物時，我感覺到自己更有活力，思路更清晰，並且差別最大的，大概就是我的皮膚了（一吃油炸馬上爆痘痘）。同時，看到許多吃素的人因為健康出問題又回去吃肉，但其實他們的問題跟吃素不吃素一點關係都沒有，而是以不健康的加工素食為食、沒有運動習慣，或是沒有正確補充維生素B12（曾經有素食者跟我說她不用補充B12，因為她有一顆對動物的愛心......我只能說我很無語）。

如果把環境也考慮進去的話，全食物是不太需要包裝的，就是蔬菜、水果這些。我平時訂的都是一個紙箱裝滿有機蔬菜直接送上門，連包裝紙袋都沒有，然後下次訂箱子他們再收回去。買堅果則是直接拿罐子到市場去秤重裝。而反觀素漢堡排、素雞塊這類的加工食品，卻幾乎都是購買時就裝在塑膠袋裡的。大自然不是什麼身外之物，我們就是大自然的延伸，我們的健康和地球的健康是息息相關的。要是連自己的健康都不在意，該怎麼守護地球的健康？如果有任何問題，歡迎在底下評論，或是關注NutritionFacts.org的YouTube頻道，影片幾乎都有中文字幕翻譯可以選：https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCddn8dUxYdgJz3Qr5mjADtA

p.s. 配圖是我去年底擔任北京的ChinaFit素食大會主持。

***

Why am I mostly whole food plant-based (and not just vegan)?

First of all, “whole food plant-based” (WFPB) refers to foods that are unprocessed. So in other words, real foods that grow from the ground: fruits, vegetables, whole grains, seeds, nuts, etc.

I went mostly whole food plant-based three years ago for two reasons: 1) When you work for NutritionFacts.org and watch video after video about the health benefits of a WFPB diet, it’s hard not to walk the talk. 2) My body naturally doesn’t like foods that are too heavy, oily, salty, or sweet. It just doesn’t feel good to consume those foods.

Do I do it 100% all the time? Of course not! 😛 I don’t have oil, salt or sugar at home, and I don’t buy any refined grains. So when I cook at home, I’m 100% WFPB & SOS-free. But when I eat out, I’m more flexible with SOS. I still wouldn’t eat deep-fried foods even when I eat out, and avoid white rice or white noodles as much as I can. But when I crave a vegan donut or cheesecake, I also won’t stop myself. The point is not to do it perfectly all the time, but to make it a habit to eat healthy and just do the best you can.

People go vegan for different reasons. I didn’t care about health when I first started my vegetarian/vegan journey 14 years ago, and I was even proud of it. But I always strive to expand myself, so going WFPB seemed like a natural next step. When I eat clean, I see the difference in my level of energy, cognitive function, and most notably - my skin. I also think it’s a pity to see people who went vegan reverse back to eating meat because they encountered health issues that have nothing to do with being vegan or not, but are actually about eating healthy/real foods vs. processed junk, not supplementing correctly (B12, for example), or not maintaining an active lifestyle.

Taking the environment into consideration, unprocessed fruits and vegetables also don’t require much packaging, unlike vegan patties or nuggets that usually come wrapped in plastic. Nature is not something outside of us - we are nature, and our health is interconnected with the health of the planet. So feel free to reach out if you have any questions, or even better, follow NutritionFacts.org ❤️

一封給國家地理頻道「Dog: Impossible」節目負責人的公開信:

An open letter to the leadership team of Nat Geo Wild Dog Impossible:

Translate: Yu-Hwa Su 翻譯: 蘇昱華
Proof: Yen Ke 校對: 葛雁

The International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants (IAABC) applauds National Geographic’s mission to offer intelligent, relevant and captivating non-fiction entertainment. This is a crucial objective, especially as an introduction to children and viewers largely relying on television for their scientific information.
國際動物行為諮詢師協會（IAABC）對於國家地理頻道致力於提供電視觀眾正確知識與科學內容表示讚賞。這是一個非常重要的目標，特別是對依賴電視得到這些知識的兒童與其他觀眾們來說。

However, your stated mission is in direct conflict with your show Dog: Impossible. In fact, the irresponsible treatment of the dogs and people on this show flies in the face of all best practices in animal training and behavior. Rather than promoting science and scientifically-proven methodology, Dog: Impossible sacrifices learning science for more dramatic television.
然而，貴頻道所提供的節目「Dog: Impossible」卻與貴頻道「提供正確的科學知識」的一貫立場衝突。節目中對犬隻以及飼主的不負責處理方式與應有的動物訓練及行為操作的準則相違背。「Dog: Impossible」並沒有提倡科學以及經科學驗證的方法，這節目犧牲了對科學的學習，轉而追求吸睛的電視節目效果。

Matt Beisner appears to have no credentials or education in training and behavior, yet he refers to himself as a behaviorist. His claim that “energy is the one language that every animal on the planet speaks” makes clear he is not one.
Matt Beisner並沒有動物訓練或行為學的相關學習經歷與證照，卻宣稱自己是一位行為學家。從他的主張：「能量是地球上所有動物都會使用的共通語言」，便能明白他並不是行為學家。

His statement, “You don’t need tricks, you don’t need treats, you don’t need force,” shows just how unaware of his own actions he is. His misuse of scientific terminology leads viewers to believe they are learning demonstrated, safe and accepted strategies in helping their dogs. In fact, Mr. Beisner is forcing these dogs from start to finish of each episode. His own “tricks” are that of over-stressing dogs until they’re in a state referred to in psychology and science as “learned helplessness.”
他主張「你不需要技巧、零食、或蠻力 (去訓練狗)」，這顯示出他對於自己的所做所為一無所知。他對科學術語的濫用也會誤導觀眾，讓觀眾以為他們正在學習經證實有效而且安全可接受的方法來幫助狗狗。但這位訓練師在每一集節目上從頭到尾都是在逼迫這些狗，而他所擁有的「技巧」，就是讓狗進入過度緊迫的狀態，直到牠們進入心理學和科學上所指的「習得無助」（learned helplessness）狀態。

Learned helplessness occurs when a subject endures repeated aversive stimuli beyond their control. Originally thought to show a subject's acceptance of their powerlessness, for more than half a century it’s been known instead to be the emotional “shutting down” of the subject. Anxiety, clinical depression, and related mental illnesses are common consequences of this technique in humans.
「習得無助」發生在動物沒有任何控制權，且重複地被施加嫌惡刺激的時候。最初，人們認為習得無助狀態意味著動物「接受」了自身無法改變、無能為力的情形，超過半個世紀以來，人們認為這是動物情緒「關機（shutting down）」的表現。在人類身上，習得無助的常見結果包含焦慮、憂鬱症、以及相關的心理疾病。

Allow us to note some aspects of the trailer and his shows, but first, to point out a few well-documented and commonly understood aspects of dog behavior so that we may better make our points understood.
在我們解釋為何我們認為此節目的預告片與內容不適當之前，我們希望先闡述一些正確的犬隻行為常識，以便您能更理解我們的觀點。

Canine body language indicating stress and severe stress:
顯示出壓力以及嚴重緊迫的犬隻肢體語言：

Compressed bodies
Dry, raspy panting
Wide, open eyes with dilated pupils
Heavy drooling
“Whipping” head and body back, pushing off a handler in order to get away
Growling
Fighting
Biting
縮緊身體
急促的喘氣
睜大雙眼、散瞳
大量流口水
甩頭、用前爪推抱著狗的人以退後、試圖掙脫
低吼
打架
開咬

Eleven seconds into the trailer, Mr. Beisner rubs his hands together, smiling, and says, “This is going to be gnarly.” All professionals know from that statement what the series will spotlight: A poorly (if at all) educated non-professional pushing dogs way beyond therapeutic limits, in the name of “results.”
在預告片11秒的地方，Beisner先生搓手並笑著說「等一下會很精采喔」。所有專業人士都知道這句話代表這個節目的亮點將會是：一名缺乏適當教育的訓練師，逼迫狗到超過其能承受的極限，並把這樣的結果稱為是良好的改善。

Flooding, the term for inundating a subject with their fears, phobias and triggers, is ethically questionable at best, cruel and unnecessary, always. There's also a common danger of spontaneous recovery of the phobia. This is because flooding doesn't replace the fear-response with a different response, it just replaces it with no response. “No response” is simply suppression, not cure.
「洪水法」，指的是故意將動物置於恐慌或恐懼的觸發刺激情境，這樣的方法不道德、殘忍、而且沒必要。另外，恐懼的自發性回復（spontaneous recovery）也是洪水法常見的風險，這是因為洪水法並沒有將害怕的反應重新制約成其他不同的情緒行為，它只是讓動物沒有反應。「沒有反應」只是壓抑，動物並沒有因此感到不害怕或恐慌。

Throughout the trailer dogs are flooded with aversive stimuli such as other dogs, people and equipment, something an ethical professional would not, and could not do per any answerable guidelines of animal training and behavior care.
在整個預告片中，狗狗被迫接受各種嫌惡刺激的洪水法訓練，例如其他狗、其他人類和物品，這是具有道德的專業訓練人員不會做的，任何負責任的動物訓練及行為照護準則也不會如此建議。

Systematic desensitization and counterconditioning, gradual exposure to the feared object, and replacement of a negative emotional association with a more pleasant one, are the recommended techniques used to treat such fear and aggression cases, per all legitimate veterinary, training and behavior organizations.
系統性減敏與反制約，也就是逐步與少量的讓狗接觸其本來會害怕的事物，並且將引發的少量負面情緒與其非常喜愛的事物配對給予，是用來處理恐懼及攻擊案例的建議方法，也是每個好的獸醫師、訓練及行為機構會推薦的方法。

Beisner’s statement that “We know at the Zen Yard that dogs help other dogs come out of their shell and face their fear and get past their aggression” isn’t just scientifically unsupportable, his words ring hollow during the very scene playing while he says those words: Beisner restraining one dog, while his co-host pulls a leashed dog to the first in a completely unnatural gesture perhaps intended to either mimic natural dog greeting (it doesn’t) or to flood the heavily drooling dog who is unable to move or get away. The dogs end up in a fight. They have been set up to fail, and the outcome is inevitable.
Beisner宣稱「我們在Zen Yard（他的訓練中心）知道狗會去幫助其他狗融入外界、面對牠們的恐懼並且克服攻擊行為」，這句話不只是缺乏科學支持，在影片中他講出這句話時搭配的畫面，亦表現出他的說詞缺乏支持：Beisner限制了第一隻狗的行動，由節目的共同主持人以牽繩將另一隻狗以一個完全不自然的姿勢拉到第一隻狗身邊，他們可能是在試著模仿狗狗自然的社交打招呼行為（但並不是），或使用洪水法訓練那隻狂流口水（顯示牠很緊張）並且無法逃脫的狗。最終兩隻狗打起來，訓練師製造的這個情境，讓失敗的結果無可避免。

In the trailer, the assistant host, Stefanie DiOrio, states, “Nervousness can easily turn to fear which can lead to aggression.” This is an accurate statement, which is why it’s so confusing that the entire show would be predicated on pushing dogs to the very edge of survivable stress and into predictable aggression, doubling down on the issues that their owners are struggling with.
在預告片中，節目的共同主持人Stefanie DiOrio說「緊張不安很容易變成真正的恐懼，並且導致攻擊行為」，這句話是正確的，但也讓人更加困惑為何整個節目的走向都在將狗推向牠們所能承受壓力的極限、觸發根本可預測的攻擊行為、並使飼主所面對的問題加倍惡化。

We know that the dramatic changes in behavior, from stressed and wildly aggressive to “calm” dogs, make for compelling TV. To an average pet owner it looks like these dogs are making huge improvements. All clients just want their dog to “Stop being aggressive.” However, we also know that behavior suppression is not the same as behavior modification, that a stressed and shut-down dog is a more dangerous animal than one who is actively showing aggression, and that the long-term prognosis of this kind of intervention is poor for both the client and their dog.
我們知道行為上戲劇性的變化，從一隻緊迫且兇猛攻擊的狗轉變成“冷靜”的狗，這個過程代表了高收視率，在不十分了解行為學的飼主眼中看來，這些狗狗似乎有巨大的進步。飼主都只是希望他們的狗「不要再有攻擊性」，然而我們也知道單純抑制攻擊行為的出現，並不是真正的行為改善技術。舉例來說一隻高壓力但看似沒有反應的狗，遠比一隻會表現出攻擊性的狗要危險許多 (譯註: 因為這樣的狗可能會沒有徵兆地開咬)，因此這種抑制攻擊行為的訓練法，以長遠來看對飼主以及狗狗都是有害的。

It is also worth pointing out that, like his predecessor, Mr Beisner’s assessment of cause for much of the issues he’s asked to address is simple, made especially clear in episode 4 where he not only saves a dog, he “saves a marriage:” Women are unable to effectively lead, must be stronger, must change their ways.
另一個值得注意的事是Beisner先生，如同他在同一個頻道的前輩，西薩，對導致問題的原因評估也過於簡化，例如第四集中他聲稱他不只拯救了狗狗，他還「拯救了這段婚姻」，因為女主人無法有效的領導狗狗，因此她必須更堅強，必須改變他們之間的相處模式。

Misogyny, it seems, cures dog behavior problems. Real exploration and explanation regarding the antecedents and consequences around behaviors are ignored in favor of client blaming.
這段貶抑女性的解釋，看起來似乎能改善犬隻的行為問題，然而關於行為問題真正的前因後果卻被指責客戶所取代，並沒有真正的被探討與解釋。

The clients on the show represent thousands of clients throughout the US and beyond with whom we work every day, helping them to help their dogs. Far from being dogs “other people won’t work with,” the dogs on your show are exactly the clients and dogs that IAABC Certified Dog Behavior Consultants, as well as all members of the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists, Certified Applied Animal Behaviorists, and other certified behavior specialists see and successfully work with every day.
節目中所出現的客戶正代表了我們日常工作中所會幫助的人們與他們的狗，呈現的就是我們在美國跟其他國家的上千位客戶。節目中所出現的這些有著行為問題的狗絕對不是「其他訓練師都不想要處理的狗狗」，事實上這些客戶與狗正是IAABC認證的狗行為諮詢師、美國獸醫行為學家、認證的應用動物行為學家或是其他受認證的行為學專家，每天工作的日常。

We do so using the best practices of our field (see https://m.iaabc.org/about/ethics/), adopted by the leading behavior and training organizations, without psychologically or physically harming the animals we work with.
我們在這個領域也使用最嚴謹的訓練師專業道德守則（英文版參見https://m.iaabc.org/about/ethics/，中文版參見https://reurl.cc/72eVkl），這個守則受領先的行為及訓練機構所採用，使訓練師與行為諮詢師在工作時，不對我們經手的動物造成生理或心理上的傷害。

The IAABC urges Nat Geo WILD to stop promoting this public miseducation. The tactics employed in the name of entertainment are unnecessarily harsh and potentially dangerous to the public, and they teach yet another generation of Nat Geo watchers absolutely incorrect and harmful practices.
IAABC呼籲國家地理頻道（Nat Geo WILD）停止傳播此系列誤導公眾的資訊。以娛樂包裝節目的策略對於觀眾是不必要的粗糙而且有潛在風險的，甚至是向頻道的年輕一代觀眾灌輸完全不正確且有害的做法。

It remains a mystery why your network is so intent on harming dogs. After years of Cesar Milan, to now bring in a man equally unskilled, who equates terrified, angry or entrapped dogs to his own addiction history is remarkable. Are we really satisfied conflating ego with compassion, self-focus with an understanding of animal behavior? Is this the “science” your mission stands for?
我們仍然不知為何貴頻道這麼多年來如此堅持持續傷害狗的這些作為。在西薩 (Cesar Milan) 的節目播映多年之後，現在又引進一個同樣缺乏正確訓練技巧，以自身藥物成癮困擾歷史去錯誤的同理恐懼或憤怒的狗的人。我們能接受一個膨脹自我，而非真正擁有同情心、適當自我聚焦、了解動物行為的「專業人士」嗎？這就是貴節目所宣稱的「科學」立場嗎？

The damage Nat Geo is doing to dogs by choosing this type of programming is astounding. We can only assume that the producers are unaware of this, as it’s hard to imagine such harm and cruelty would be deliberate.
國家地理頻道選擇製作這類節目對於狗狗的傷害甚鉅，我們只能假定節目製作人並沒有意識到這點，因為我們難以想像會有人故意去做這樣有害且殘忍的事情。

Would you show a reality program on heart surgery with a photogenic “self-taught” practitioner, simply stating the star was not a doctor before showing him mutilating a real patient?
想問貴節目是否會採用一個上鏡的“自學”外科醫生錄製心臟手術的實境節目，告知觀眾他並非真正的醫生，然後播放他對病患動刀的畫面？

I leave you with the clearest image of suffering and abuse from your trailer: the Aussie, stressed to the breaking point, thick ropes of drool streaming from its mouth, being choked by a slip lead to compensate for the host’s inability to even effectively muzzle a dog. This dog is at the point of collapse. This dog is being tortured, and that is not hysteria. That is an assessment by any educated measure.
作為結尾，我希望指出貴節目預告片中明確顯示出狗狗受苦或受虐的畫面：那隻澳洲牧羊犬已經瀕臨壓力的極限，您可以看到口水掛在其嘴邊 (大量口水為壓力徵兆)，口罩因為沒有確實的配戴而滑脫，導致牠被勒到快要窒息，已在崩潰邊緣。具備專業與適當教育的人員指出，這隻狗因在節目上被虐待而情緒崩潰，並非其本身歇斯底里。

Please stop this cruel and dangerous programming. To do otherwise is to support that self-taught heart surgery and all the consequences it would bring; that this show is currently bringing to families struggling with their dogs.
Professionals refer to Cesar Milan’s influence on dog training as “job security” because so many dogs ruined or made far worse by his teachings are brought to us by well-intentioned, often weeping owners desperate for real help. Often it is too late.
請停止這系列殘酷且危險的節目。否則貴節目就等同於支持前面舉例的自學的心臟外科「醫師」進行手術一樣，這些危險的後果正由觀眾與他們的狗承擔。專業訓犬人士將西薩米蘭對訓犬的影響戲稱為「工作保障」，因為太多飼主使用了他教授的技巧後，狗狗的狀況變得更糟，而哭著迫切尋找真正的協助，此時通常都為時已晚。

We do not want more work due to this same phenomenon.
我們不想要因為這個節目帶來類似影響而接到更多工作。

We’d be happy to provide you with any education and resources you need to inform your producers about what would qualify as responsible, effective, safe and thoughtful work with the same “red zone” dogs you sell so well.
但我們很樂意提供貴頻道任何需要的教育與資源，讓您們的節目製作人對訓犬工作應有的品質有所理解，例如負責、有效、安全，並且理解到對於在節目中出現的這些「危險」犬隻，事實上有更合理的訓練方法。

Thank you for your consideration.
謝謝您的閱讀與理解。

Marjie Alonso
Executive Director, IAABC
For the Board of Directors

Marjie Alonso
IAABC執行長
代表董事會發言

歡迎光臨~我是樂筆！

「 到底怎麼選擇人生方向啊？」這是你內心的吶喊嗎？
今天找了位相差七歲的弟來聊聊我們怎麼選擇未來方向的。
到底先選校還先選系？中文系真的很好混？
很抱歉有半集歪樓在瞎聊身材跟返校？
如果聽完還是很迷惘的話，歡迎私訊樂筆Instagram一起為未來禱告喔

Welcome to Sunlight!
"How on earth to decide my way in the future?", have you ever also been curious about it?
Vincent, younger than me by 7 years, will share us his experience of it.
Should we take universities into consideration first, or major?
Is it easy to slack off in department of Chinese literature?
Sorry for going off-topic. We talk about shape and "Detention" half the time.
If you're still confused after hear us out, welcome to DM me by Instagram, so that we can pray for the future together~

📁節目收聽方式：
Apple Podcast、KKBOX、Spotify 🔍歡迎光臨

- - -

✒Facebook：https://www.facebook.com/sunlightpen007/
✒Instagram：https://www.instagram.com/sunlight007_/
✒合作邀約：hisunlight007@gmail.com
💰小額贊助我們做更好的內容
https://pay.firstory.me/user/sunlight

- - -

主持人兼編輯 Host/Editor：樂筆
剪接師 Sound Editor：Papa.H
翻譯 Translator：Youli