活着

活着本身,就是一件诗意的事情吧,在漫无边际的世界上,寻找一两点自己所喜爱的价值,然后为之绽放一切。

怎么选择,为什么选择,已经不需要去想了。人是自己塑造的吧:无论原生家庭怎么样,无论生长经历怎么样,人是自己塑造的吧。没有谁有办法改变另一个人的灵魂,没有任何东西可以改变。突然有了一种自由的感觉。

晴空下的草地,孤身一人,是最大的空虚,也是最大的喜乐。人是需要依赖人存在的吗?别人就是一切吗?因为别人的关注而关注,因为别人的忽视而忽视。真正还算是活着吗?如果每个人的思想是由社交网络平均塑造的,是一组平均值,那何必存在呢?

不过,那样的人更加合群吧。上心理学引论的时候,老师说人天生就会排斥不平均的人,因为这样的生物存在突破了他们的舒适区。平均的体型是最美的,平均的脸型是最好看的。

不知道,人本身会不会倾向于使自己的灵魂变得平均。每个人在十几岁的时候都很不一样,像是独立的一个世界。而到了四十岁,却只要用一个词,就能说完一个人的灵魂。可以有专业领域,有兴趣爱好,有胖瘦高矮。但灵魂上,有什么区别呢?可以很清楚地知道一个人会喜欢什么,害怕什么。那一代人灵魂生而相等吗?还是时间会把灵魂训练成几种单调的类型呢?

在赞赏平均,期望平均的世界上,这样的人会过得更好吧。成就,荣誉,地位,都是给那些最为平均,最按社会要求生活的人的。

相对于平均而炫目的幸福,我选择平凡而孤独地苟活。像自己一样地活着,就很好了。

乱七八糟的蓝色天空 可能有些白云吧
想把星星丢到水面上 划出漂亮的波纹
不知道还剩下多少时间
要活得美好呀
每一天
每一刻
像飞鸟一样翱翔
就算坠落在深渊里
也要看尽美丽的风景
尽力,为世界也留下一抹鲜艳的色彩吧

要努力的生活下去呀

2017年感觉经历了很多事情,是挺奇特的一年吧。很多时候感觉自己在一个奇特的压抑的梦境里生活,感觉不是一个能够给别人带来快乐的人呢。可能是确实有些抑郁,总是以为可以找到很多事情来填补这个抑郁,但还是给别人带来了好多负能量。真的很不好呢。

有时候会觉得世界没有自己的话会变得更好,而自己确实希望世界变得更好来着。虽然感觉这么做有些自私,但毕竟进入了生活这个游戏,无论被设定了什么难度,总要看完每一面的风景吧。可能高难度的弹幕确实会更难对付,但又何尝不是一个美丽的景象呢?未来回想起来可能也会是丰富多彩的奇遇吧。虽然觉得自己对世界来说不是一件好事,但可能还会有一些人觉得我是一道还不错的风景吧。

有时候会梦到自己躲在瀑布后面的偷偷地看着外面,可能是自己一直不敢从里面走出来吧。总是戴着一个又一个面具,总是做着别人期望自己做的事情,即使不情愿,也想让别人看到希望看到的样子。应该是一个很坏的习惯呢。总是觉得自己应该被讨厌,总是觉得自己应该是一个需要和人保持距离的存在。虽然确实是事实,但也没有太多好的结果呀。

希望自己能够在未来的一年内成为一个能给周围每一个人都带来快乐的人吧。虽然不知道能不能做到,但至少应该尝试一下呀。

2018年一定要快快乐乐的呀,大家都认为我是一个很快乐幸福的人,确实也应该是这样的吧。

希尔伯特问题简述(上)

希尔伯特问题集包括23个问题,是近代哲学上最受人关注的问题,启发了近代多领域的研究。之前零零碎碎对这些问题作了一些随笔,近几天把它们整理了一下。(数学证明什么的还是直接看相关论文吧…常见的数论/计算理论什么的书里面也会有几个,毕竟老问题了…每一个问题的证明都比较复杂…窝要是复述一遍估计说不定会跳过了关键步骤什么的zz

希尔伯特第一问题

描述:可列集合之无穷基数和实数集合基数之间不存在任何集合的基数
人话:没有比整数集合大,比实数集合小的集合
哲学含义:集合过渡的连续性,是否存在无穷多个无穷大,(感觉是不明显地向化圆为方致敬?一个可数一个连续的
现代结论:不能在ZFC下证否或证明
倾向性猜想:我觉得连续统假设在我看来,以我的直观上认为是错的(直观而已。映射的证明方法限制了证明思路,可能需要更靠谱的公理体系和证明方法才能证明/证否这一假设。这依赖于另一种公理化集合体系,先构造集合在设立公理的方法可能可以是公理化集合论的一个突破。但看上去好像没什么好办法zz

希尔伯特第二问题

描述:公理系统彼此之间相容性是可判定的
人话:可以证明一个系统是不是在定义上就自相矛盾
哲♂学意义:现代科学基本上都以公理+逻辑为基础,相对论等科学的发展都来源于原先公理体系的矛盾性,发现矛盾性或者找的发现矛盾性的方法可以极大地加速新理论的创立,然而并不能这样
现代结论:哥德尔不完备性定理
思考:图灵喜欢拿哥德尔不完备性定理的证明方法证停机问题玩…

希尔伯特第三问题

描述:两个同体积多面体,是否一定有方法将第一个分割后结合成第二个
哲学意义:明显地向化圆为方致敬?只不过是两个方了zz
现代结论:不可以
思考:为啥空间是三维的?看希尔伯特第三就知道~(吗?直觉上感觉2和3是神奇的数字,二维空间和三维空间结构上有很多明显的不同,但或许只是因为理解四维空间比较困难,说不定三维和四维之间也有很多不同zz开始人择原理了

希尔伯特第四问题

描述:什么是平面,以及为什么两点之间直线最短?什么是最短?什么是距离?
哲♂学意义:量度方法
现代结论:额..希尔伯特想问啥?
思考:我觉得他大概想问怎么定义范数,哪个范数是自然的定义。感觉定义范数的方法多姿多彩,但要定义什么是“自然”的就会打起来;还不如像碰到emacs和vim哪个好一样不要发表意见

希尔伯特第五问题
描述:李群是不是光滑流形
哲学意义:这和李群的定义有关吧
现代结论:解析李群和光滑李群是同一个东西
思考:好像有直接用光滑性定义李群的…

希尔伯特第六问题
描述:物理是不是可以公理化
哲♂学意义:康德告诉你,就是不可以,实验是不能证明真理的,因为存在可能的黑天鹅效应,但实验可以检验(假设的)公理,所以相信拉普拉斯的话就直接拿来用好了;
现代结论:古代就有了(虽然可能纯属歪打正着
思考:如果把没有观察到反例当作事实的话说不定可以;这是一个信仰的问题,我是相信拉普拉斯的用概率代替上帝的行为,并反对拉格朗日,当然也有很多人相信拉格朗日…好像爱因斯坦就讨厌概率论来着?理性宇宙设计是很多物理学研究的默认假说,但要是真的物理定律实际上是一大坨乱糟糟的东西怎么办?人类认为的优雅和实际上的优雅可能有很大差别吧…虽然是信仰,自大到自以为宇宙的设计者和人类对简洁的定义一样可不太好,弦论什么的只需要一个反例就变成纯数学玩具了

希尔伯特第七问题
描述:代数数的无理次幂是不是超越数?
哲学意义:额
现代结论:是的,数学分析课上会提到的样子
随着世界的发展之前的未解之谜都会变成常识的样子zz

希尔伯特第八问题
描述:黎曼猜想、哥德巴赫猜想和孪生素数猜想
哲学意义:额
现代结论:额
感觉黎曼猜想需要有一种新工具才能解决,而且1/2让人充满遐想~~总觉得和空间拓扑结构有关;哥德巴赫猜想感觉被布朗引导了歪路上,个人不认为陈氏定理可能对哥德巴赫猜想的证明有什么帮助…椭圆曲线可能是个方向,但也有可能是另一种结构;孪生素数H已经可以做到6了(如果你相信爱骆驼-嗨波丝毯的话),证明的也有246了…结果会不会像布朗的那条路这样就不知道了额,感觉毕竟是不同的手段不同的问题不应该悲观,但数论里面证明4到2用从头到脚都不一样的方法太多了,所以也难说,陶哲轩好像也没能用这套方法做到2,应该这条路会有点困难;这三个问题直觉上让人觉得联系很紧密,数论问题很多最后都是数学结构的基础的问题(素性),感觉有种在研究真理的感觉zz但说不定实际上是三个完全不同的东西呢

希尔伯特第九问题
描述:最通用的互反律是啥
哲♂学意义:二次互反确实是一个极其巧妙的思路..突然想吐槽高斯的算术探索的中文翻译真有点…
现代结论:阿呆搞出来的代数域下的基本上可以算是解了?但in any number field的通用解..要不吃点药?
要对数域的集合有足够的认识才能在这个问题上找到解吧,特别是数域和数域之间的关系…代数是人类发明的最难的几个学科,但也是唯一几个感觉接近真理的;在人类连数域的定义都没有完全搞明白(希尔伯特第一问题)的情况下不是特别好直接开始研究in any number field的东西吧。。要一步步来吧。。不过可能启发对数域的定义倒是事实;但感觉已经被阿呆洗脑严重想不出有什么更好的集合定义方法了zz

希尔伯特第十问题
描述:解丢翻图方程的算法
哲学意义:无穷的有限化
现代结论:并不能
额 传统的计算理论历史背景资料?课上肯定讲过?虽然是上午的课全睡过了

希尔伯特第十一问题
描述:二次型的解
哲学意义:额 不懂
现代结论:好像可以用局部分析来推
不是特别理解,感觉也是和素性相关的问题,但看证明又和第八问题里面的那种素性联系不起来zz没想明白,到时候可以再想想

Now secured with DNSSEC

In the last few days, all my web services have been secured with DNSSEC. I have used DNSPod for some time and am pretty satisfied with their service, but after some incidents of failing to resolve for foreign places, I decided to change my DNS service. So my DNS service has been changed, and also secured with DNSSEC.

DNSSEC is a chain of trust service that authorization each DNS reply using asymmetric encryption. It starts from the top-level CA, which is “.”, and then some gTLD, like “org.”, and then the register’s domain. It’s a signing only method, so the DNS request is not encrypted and can be cached. The weakest point is that your domain registrar has total control over the DNSSEC key so that if your domain registrar wanted to change it to another thing, it would be done. Also, the encrypted key of “.” and “org.” is both 1024 bit RSA, so there may be some possibility to break it using a really big supercomputer within expire time. (there is about 1.47% possibility that you can break a 1024bit RSA key using Tianhe-2 under six month)

It’s a good way to prevent DNS poisoning. With DNSSEC, the most respectable mail service(Google) will not be fooled by easy tricks to send the email to some MIMA server. Also, if the client’s DNS service is secured under DNSSEC, the client will not be fooled to another site.
However, there is little ISP that does the right DNSSEC check inside China. One famous DNS provider inside china, 114DNS, has exactly zero aware of DNSSEC. And if the DNS record is signed with the wrong key, the 114DNS will not care and just return the malicious result.
So I set up three DNS servers to do the right DNSSEC check. One for my personal network(mail/VPCC/wiki/gitlab/backup/LDAP/WebDAV…) and another for my personal VPN. The two DNS servers using another DNS server as a cache. Now the weakest spot is that before I start my VPN, the DNS is poisoned. However, as my VPN is secured using another set of RSA keys, and I never visit anywhere without my VPN on, it should be fine.

With DNSSEC, I can now have my keys published using DNS. Now my GPG key for vxst@vxst.org can be auto-fetched if the DNS search is enabled. The weak point is that the DNS search function is not capable of verifying DNSSEC at peer but relies on the remote resolver. RFC4035 seems to be suggesting any client with the ability to check DNSSEC to check DNSSEC by itself. I believe GnuPG is a client that has the ability to check DNSSEC and should have checked DNSSEC. Without that function, anyone can just modify the UDP package between the resolver and the client to give the client any key the attacker likes. A temporary solution would be setting up a DNSSEC capable resolver at the localhost and dig from 127.0.0.1:53.

Whatever, having it is better than having nothing. But still, if you want to send me encrypted emails, see about page on this blog and using keys there, or make sure you are doing DNSSEC check at localhost…

Perfection is death

Being perfect is good. But trying to be perfect is just a death sentence to anyone.

There is no perfection

In the theory world, there is a top for anything, and you can reach perfection just by spending enough. It’s always true that a project’s quality is linearly boosted as time spent. However, it’s not. Just like speed, you can reach a certain speed easily by accelerating for a certain time, but if you want more speed, more accelerating time/energy is just useless. You can never reach c even if you spend an infinite amount of time and an infinite amount of energy. It’s the same in any project. You can get to a certain quality level with a certain amount of time in the beginning. However, no matter how long you spend, it’s never perfect.

We use the backup project as an example to explain it in detail. First, we define the perfect state of a backup project:

  • No one can access the backup data except the owner
  • The owner will never lose any useful data because of the backup

First, it’s something that can be easily done. You write a script to diff the data, divide data into small s3 objects, GPG encrypt it and sign it, then send it to Amazon Glacier. Just some lines of script, easy.

But when you put it into your crontab, you find something is missing. It’s not a perfect backup scheme. The data can be lost if you accidentally deleted it when you are between the backup cycle. It’s not tolerable! But you can still solve it. So you write a service, and then go into your kernel source tree, open the fs/open.c, patch the kernel, restart the system, and find not all calls are good. So change more sources, patch the kernel, restart the system, and again, and again…

You think you have a perfect solution now. Every time you write the file, it will immediately transfer to Glacier; Even before the file reaches the disk from the cache, it has already safely in the cloud. No way to lose data now.

But the problem can always arise. It’s still a long way to perfection. What if Amazon bankrupt? Easy, add the backup to Aliyun; What if your backup GPG key is lost? Print the encrypted version and post it anywhere; What if the network is down? Write another service to do a watchdog job and beep loudly whenever a backup fails. Beep is of course, not perfect. You need to have two private network lines to Amazon and Aliyun just to provide stable networking, so you buy AWS Direct Connect and some fuck network setup for Aliyun. But it can still fail, so you build an automatic program to call Amazon and Aliyun to fix the private line when it finds the line is broken.

Yeah, you have a perfect backup solution. But no?

It’s still far, far away from being perfection.

What if RSA is not secure? You need a private asymmetric encrypt method to make sure it’s safe(I use VXEnc~). What if your important idea is lost when typing in TTY? Patch kernel again and add keystream backup. What if kernel panics? Rewrite the kernel to perfect so that to make it never panic.

But it’s still far away from being perfection.

You still need to write a git-like branch system to manage the backup-restore history, you need to store every object’s travel history, and you need to ensure the network is good once again. Add another several providers. And you need a local offline copy, so you build a service that’s just like Glacier. You need perfection, and Earth has a possibility to nuclear war(0.7% for average given year, it is said), 0.7% data loss rate? Not tolerable! So you need to build the world’s biggest rocket launch station to send out backup copy in real-time as you save a file. But it still needs much more improvement to keep it secure in space.

 

You see, it can never complete.

 

I spent about 2 hours to finish the first step, but much more time has been spent since then, and I have never finished all the things on the list yet. I believe much more can be done, just to make the simple two requirement successful:

  • No one can access the backup data except the owner
  • The owner will never lose any useful data because of the backup

I developed a feeling that even all human beings spend all their life just trying to finish such a simple backup task perfectly, they will fail. Even if all human generations, one after another, spent infinite time on this simple data backup project, they will not achieve perfection.

There is no perfection.

 

There can always be perfection

Though in reality, there is no perfection, you can always find some better ways for anything. You can always find something you can do to make your project better. Since there is the internet, you can receive far more information than your ancestors. They may live in a dreamland that they have done everything perfectly even if they can’t be sure whether or not their house can stand over the next storm, but you can’t. You will always receive information about how to make something better. That information tends to make you believe it’s easy and simple to build a better place. Your knowledge is improved than your ancestors, and your ability enables you to do things that will help your project to perfection. And your brain refuses to believe anything is finished until it is perfection.

The smarter you are, the harder to lie to your brain. If you are good enough, you may find all the things that you have joined are marked as undone.

Modern lifestyle is a helper for this crisis. In the good old time, you can know when you finished work. When you make bottles for sale, you make bottles, even though they are imperfect, you will not spend time to think that you should rob it from your customers to make it more perfect. When the bottles are out of your hand, it has finished, no more headache.

But modern days, you are a worker with multiple projects. You can not finish a part of the project and marked it as done. As you can always make changes to that part, you will always try to make it perfect. As long as you have access to that part, it is never marked as done.

As a human, you will have the Zeigarnik effect whenever there are things undone. When all things are never done, you will be mad. Everyone feels that madness in modern society. People want to do things, but they can’t, as there are many other things to do. They want to do A, but there are BCDEFGHIJ; They want to finish B, but there are ACDEFGHIJ, and much more clearly shined in their brain than B because of Zeigarnik effect. They decide to finish J first, but their brain keeps thinking of ABCDEFGHI. They decide to start a perfect timetable with a perfect J, and J will never finish as there is no perfection.

In the end, they finish nothing.

But still, ABCDEFGHIJ is in their brain. They need to do it. So they browser the internet trying to find something for B and find a good way to solve part of C, they did it, and remember B is not even started. Guiltily, they close the computer, see the To-Do list, and find the H, trying to do it in 5 minutes, and mobile phone rings.

Do you ever have the feeling that you have done nothing after a tiring day?

Don’t you?

Henry Ford invented assembly lines to save the worker from low efficiency. Some textbook says assembly lines improve efficiency by letting everyone do the repeated task. However, it’s not entirely true. Assembly lines improve efficiency by letting workers forget about their previous product and focus on the current one. An experienced car master can easily build a car from raw metals if he wants, but even in every detail he is more experienced than assembly workers, he will never reach 1/5 efficiency of a man in an assembly line. He can build a car in 10000 hours with all the tools a worker has, but 1000 workers can do the same thing in 1 hour.

It’s not because he is not experienced. Even the assembly line is filled with fresh new workers. Everyone can be much more efficient than the lonely car master.

It’s because he can touch his product even when a part is finished.

The only solution to this problem is a Freeze and GTD lifestyle. For every single project, it should be a test, which tells you whether the project is finished. If a test is passed, even your guts tell you the project is in a mess, and you should never touch the project again. It’s finished. Not only so, but it’s also frozen. In a preset period, you shouldn’t do anything to improve the project even if you do want to improve it. Do a new project after the period if you still remember the project. But never think of the project when it is finished, as it will never be on your list again.

Have you heard it somewhere? It seems familiar? Yes, it’s TDD. You write more production code every day (exclude test) in TDD is not because your time is magically doubled, it’s because your code can be anything, ANYTHING, as long as it passes the test. Whenever some code passes the test, you will not and should not review it. It’s a way to fight Zeigarnik effect, just like the assembly line.

If you can always focus on your topic, you will have 5~10 times performance boost. It is verified data. Assembly lines make workers focus, and 10x performance is seen. Good TDD makes programmers focus, and for some programmers, 100x performance is seen. You can also have this performance boost happen in your daily life, just do like you are in an assembly, and you will be fine.

 

danger to HTTPS, doom to SPDY

Since the BREACH attack, it seems that there is no way to transport content securely in the HTTP world.

The BREACH arrack is an HTTP version of CRIME, which recovers encrypted messages by analyzing the compress ratio of different media. It is well-know that people can see distinct pictures from the text by the compress ratio; however, before CRIME, there is no easy way to detect what exactly the information is by the ratio only. But the breach always exists. The word “faster” and “sunoru” have the same length. However, the entropy(binary) of “faster” is 2.58496, and the entropy of “sunoru” is 2.25163. So, if you know the original length(6) of the words, and also get access to the entropy of the words, you can easily obtain rich information from the results. For a “perfect” compress algorithm with an observe-only way to get information, you can get how much time different alpha is included in each word, which, generally, is not so useful(But shouldn’t be public even so). But real-world compress algorithm is NOT perfect, and real-world environment is NOT observed only. You can send a message to the server to determine which real-world compress method the server is using, and you can obtain much more information form the simple ratio if multiple requests are made by the CRIME attack.

For HTTPS, it represents a danger for web pages with simple information. For example, some banks in China using a number in a picture to show how much money you have, when the picture is compressed, it is pretty easy to obtain the real number the picture shows by compress ratio. By using a precomputed table, you can decrypt millions of those “money pictures” per second with a Macbook Air. So if you find your bank is transport money number in the picture, you should be aware it may be a deliberate way to publish that information to the whole net.

However, for SPDY, your app may be cracked even without deliberate setups. SPDY’s speed is based on compressed headers, which include URL, cookie, and authorization token. As the client will send the header wherever people visit the same site, you just need to XSS the client to a static page(e.g., a 404-page ~), then you can obtain all the information in the header without any painful struggle. And when you get the header, you get the URL(so the complete browsing history is public), the cookie and authority token(so the log-in status of the personal), and all the content of the page. So, it’s just like that you are visiting the page using HTTP without S.

Not only HTTPS and SPDY are effected, Tor, which uses gzip as it’s compression algorithm, is also affected. But it may be not so easy to crack Tor as it reuses TCP tunnel… SSH with compress can also be decrypted this way. However, it needs some small skill and luck to do the gzip guess as you cannot easily make the user resend things.
In conclusion, SPDY is just like clear text for a careful attacker, and HTTPS is not so secure anymore…

The good news is that the network working group finally finds the danger in compression, and decides not to support compression any more in TLS 1.3 draft-02. Have I said that is good news? It seems not like a pleasant change for those who only have limited network bandwidth…

HTTPS SNI

SNI means Server Name Indication, which is a technology to let the server know which domain the client is linking to and return the certification correspondingly, which makes a single IP possible to serve multiple HTTPS sites. It is defined in RFC 6066 section 3.

The protocol extension changes the handshake process in the TLS. The client should include a struct array of the DNS name of the server the client wants to link to. And if the server has the certification, the handshake goes on normally. If not, the server should send a fatal level error and drop the connection, or just go on as if nothing happened(and give out the default certification).

The protocol also influenced the session cache of the TLS server. The TLS server which supports the extension will never give out any session to the client if the server_name mismatches. Even if the client has all the outer things qualified.

Some people think that SNI will add security risks as the client will transport the server name in cleartext. However, if a site is a TLS site(without SNI), anyone can know who the client is talking to by linking to the server. Essentially means the IP in traditional TLS servers gives out the information of the domain. Telling the domain will not add security risk to the protocol.

In fact, as the protocol provides another way to check session cache, it actually reduces the risk(though seems impossible&useless already in traditional TLS server) if the server uses the wrong TLS session which is opened by an attacker to send message to the user.

Now lab to 6.5

After altering some files in gitlab, the upgrade process becomes not an easy and happy job. Every new version comes out, dozens of files need to merge manually in order to upgrade gitlab successfully. So, after hours of mental struggle, I finally decide to upgrade it. The process is not as terrible as I thought it would be. But still, DOZENS of files to edit……

And now the update process has been finished. All things seem to be good. If anything went south, please email me~

Is Meg Jay Right?

In Meg Jay’s New York Times article “The Downside of Cohabiting before Marriage” publishes on April 14, 2012, the author suggests that cohabiting may not be a good factor in marriage like many people assume, actually, it may enlarge the possibility for couples to divorce after marriage. She argues that cohabiting couples may just slide into marriage without serious conversations about why they should live together, and, unfortunately, people’s standards of a live-in partner are lower than their standards of a spouse in most cases, which leads to unhappiness after marriage and therefore enlarges the risk of divorcing. Meg also suggests that people may have different views toward cohabiting: Women are more likely to think cohabiting as a step towards marriage, while men are more likely to see it as a way to test a relationship. These asymmetry ideas may lead to low quality of understanding and may eventually lead to the break of a marriage. She argues that cohabiting is filled with high switching cost, which may make people be “locked in” by cohabiting, and miss their true love because of it. Finally, Meg concludes that because of the high risk of cohabiting before marriage, young people should discuss the commitment level and motivation before sliding into cohabiting to prevent the cohabitation effects.

Unfortunately, there aren’t many real examples in Meg’s article, and the examples Meg gives in her article do not support her conclusion solidly. Firstly, she suggests that there are some risks lie in cohabitation itself, and gives examples which show that heedless cohabitation which leads to unhappy life and eventually leads to break up of the relationship. However, all those examples only suggest that a heedless relationship will end badly, which is a common knowledge. So that those examples are not incontrovertible evidence of the risks lie in cohabitation. She also mentions in her article that cohabitation is loaded with switching cost, which makes it difficult to break up and finds a more suitable partner. But in fact any close relationship will bring switching cost, and will make people have a hard time to make right choices. It is true that cohabitation is hard to break up, but breaking up a marriage is even harder. In this case, I believe marriage is even more dangerous than cohabitation. The author assumes that a never-breaking marriage is the ultimate goal. However, this is a false supposition. There are many stories about unhappy couples who live together for lifelong time. They waste all their life to endure each other, and miss all the opportunity to find a better partner. It’s more tragic than those who divorce and then find a better partner. So that I think a right partner is much better than an unbreakable marriage.

As for the statistic, she suggests that there are some researches which show that couples who have cohabiting experience have a higher divorce rate than those who have no cohabiting experience. However, she fails to give us the exact numbers. But according to a longterm research carried out by U.S. government which has a sample base of 22682 people, the couples who have cohabitation experience have a divorce probability of nineteen percents, and the probability of divorce for those who did not have cohabitation experience is twenty percents. So, according to this research those couples who cohabit before marriage are not more likely to get divorce. Because of the fact that most cohabiting couples are more open-minded compare to those who have no cohabiting experience, they are more open to choose divorce if their marriage doesn’t work out. So the lower possibility of divorce actually suggests that couples who cohabit before marriage have a better marriage quality than couples who do not. And there is indeed a research that shows cohabitors who marry report greater happiness, fewer disagreements, and less instability in their unions and are more able to resolve their relationship conflicts through nonviolent means. So that I believe that cohabiting experience may help people live a better life after marriage.

In her article, Meg Jay has given us some evidence which cannot fully support her ideas. The real world statistics also suggest that cohabitation may have a good effect on marriage. Therefore I believe “Cohabitation Effect” only exists on some special clients of Meg Jay. For most other people, cohabitation actually has a good effect.