Why are lobsters displayed like this?

Every participant in every stage is speaking insincerely, feigning ignorance while knowing the truth, creating anxiety, panic, and a distortion of reality.

The popularity of OpenClaw in China is turning into a magical realism drama.

• It's clearly a niche geek tool that requires command-line configuration and installation, manually configuring Docker and API keys, yet it's attracting students, workers, and elderly people who don't even understand how to use a computer and whose daily cyber life revolves around scrolling through their phones, all lining up to install it.

  • It's clearly a niche geek tool that requires command-line configuration and installation, manually configuring Docker and API keys, yet it's drawing crowds of people who don't even understand how to use a computer, and whose daily cyber life revolves around scrolling through their phones, all queuing up to install it.

    Every participant in every stage is speaking insincerely, feigning ignorance while knowing the truth, creating anxiety, panic, and a distortion of reality.

    It's clearly not a fully packaged tech product; it's just a prototype on GitHub. Yet, it's been portrayed as a mature solution capable of solving all everyday problems, a super tool readily available to everyone. It's clearly very time-consuming and labor-intensive to assemble and maintain, and also expensive (in terms of tokens). However, because it's "open source," it's packaged as a free, time-saving, and low-cost tool for lazy people (Agent), capable of doing anything. It clearly sends your private data, including but not limited to documents, photos, and videos, to the model vendor whose API is being called. However, because it's installed on your own computer, the story is told that data sovereignty belongs to the user, giving most people a false sense of security that "the model is running on their own device." It clearly has an architecture riddled with repeatedly disclosed security vulnerabilities and backdoors, yet some major tech companies dare to conduct street-level promotions, installing this thing on ordinary people lacking basic information security knowledge; some local government departments are even launching large-scale "lobster cultivation" programs, replacing genuine information technology innovation with unprotected operation. It has clearly spawned various "Claws," and major domestic language model developers have all released wrapper versions, which are at least easier to use and safer. However, the Lobster fundamentalists only advocate the original, outdated version. They have a weak sense of copyright, but are generous with open-source projects. It should clearly be the inspiration for open source. From Chat to Coding to Claw, the increasing autonomy of agents and their independence from human-computer interaction interfaces is a trend, inspiring entrepreneurs to reconstruct the future of agents. But most people don't care about these things; they are only anxious or celebrating about the Lobster core itself. It was clearly a tool to empower a minority, but the masses now perceive it as a cyber pet. For a small group of humans, Agents are tools for liberating and developing productivity; for the majority, Agents are their substitutes. Treating substitutes as coveted toys is like a mouse acting as a cat's companion. A craze, a frenzy, every aspect develops in a direction that defies common sense, and almost everything that defies common sense becomes consensus. The situation is so bizarre that there's only one possibility: everyone involved is saying one thing but meaning another, feigning ignorance while knowing the truth, and creating anxiety, panic, and a distortion of reality. I've never seen a technology or product with such a strong geeky character spread and become so ubiquitous in China as OpenClaw.

    

    Deng (a derogatory term for someone who engages in online activities) doesn't discriminate based on age. If someone is "Deng-like" (in a derogatory sense), they will generally exhibit the following behaviors: pretending to be knowledgeable and far-sighted, displaying extensive knowledge, being fond of lecturing, skilled at PUA (personal manipulation) to create anxiety, always thinking of helping others, bringing them on board, getting them to follow them, and then profiting from it.

    

    Deng (a derogatory term for someone who engages in online activities) doesn't discriminate based on age. If someone is "Deng-like," they will generally exhibit the following behaviors: pretending to be knowledgeable and far-sighted, displaying extensive knowledge, being fond of lecturing, being skilled at PUA to create anxiety, always thinking of helping others, bringing them on board, getting them to follow them, and then profiting from it.

    

    In his famous book *Crossing the Chasm*, American organizational theorist Geoffrey Moore divided the adoption cycle of technology products into five stages: innovators, early adopters, early adopters, late adopters, and laggards. Moore's core theoretical contribution is that there is a natural, insurmountable gap between "early adopters" and "early adopters" in technology application, because there is no natural transmission between the two. The former wants the possibility of change and accepts the imperfection of the product, while the latter wants a mature solution.

    

    In his famous book *Crossing the Chasm*, American organizational theorist Geoffrey Moore divided the adoption cycle of technology products into five stages: innovators, early adopters, early adopters, late adopters, and laggards.