Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How a preventable disaster killed six marines

propublica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 130 posts

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#71

Post by js8 »

bluntfang wrote: post #58
js8 wrote: post #35

Hierarchical organizations have many flaws, yet humans continue to largely support them. Why? I think the question "why there are social hierarchies" is the biggest open problem in social sciences. There are many plausible explanations, but no clear winner.

Because with a lack of explicitly hierarchy, an implicit hierarchy is created. I'm not sure of any social system that doesn't include some form of hierarchy, but am very inclined to read an opinion.

You can have democratic decision-making, which isn't hierarchical and yet is explicit about the distribution of power.

So while it's true that holacracies can quickly turn into hierarchies rather than democracies, it's still doesn't explain why hierarchies are preferred by humans over democracies, while the latter is obviously more acceptable on the state level.

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#72

Post by ceejayoz »

greedo wrote: post #51
nradov wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is also one of the main reasons why the Joint Strike Fighter (F-35) program ended up as such an expensive mess. The Marines insisted on getting their own VSTOL variant to provide CAS from amphibious ships so that they wouldn't have to rely on the Navy. And that forced the use of a huge single engine instead of smaller twin engines, making it less aerodynamic (shorter range) and less survivable for other missions…

Funny thing. Those F-35Bs fly off Navy ships. Marines have always relied on the Navy.

Initially, sure, just like they rely on the ships to get them to the beach. Early priority is often to seize an airfield, though. F-35Bs can happily fly off a land field.

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#73

Post by chad_strategic »

Devastating story, thank goodness for ProPublica bringing this to light.

I served on the ground side and never experienced this level of incompetence. (There was plenty of other fun stuff...) But maybe the shear fact that Marine Officers are on the front line with the enlisted, curbs dangerous behavior. The Air Wing in the Marine Corps is it's own branch. Marine Air Wing commanders are constantly being relieved, and usually make the cover of the Marine Corp times.

My thoughts and payers go out to the families.

Semper Fi

Retired CWO2

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#74

Post by ceejayoz »

vonmoltke wrote: post #61
eaandkw wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the same type of argument that people make over programming languages or EMACS/VIM. You could provide CAS with just about anything that flys. However a good CAS vehicle should be able to fly relatively slow and be well protected from ground fire. The A-10 if perfect and I really wish there was a way to make new ones. I even heard at one point the USMC was thinking of bringing back the OV-10 Bronco.

> The A-10 if perfect The A-10 is a death trap in a modern air defense environment. The USAF hasn't gone against one of those since Kosovo, and even back then it was all high-altitude fast movers and stealth aircraft dropping ordinance because of the threat of Serbian AD. What the A-10 is perfect for is counter-insurgency, which is pretty much all the shooting action the US has seen since Kosovo. There's an argument…

The A-10's counter-insurgency efforts would probably be well complimented by some Super Tucanos. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano

Unfortunately, they're largely too cheap and not sexy enough for the US to field.

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#75

Post by dragonwriter »

js8 wrote: post #71
bluntfang wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because with a lack of explicitly hierarchy, an implicit hierarchy is created. I'm not sure of any social system that doesn't include some form of hierarchy, but am very inclined to read an opinion.

You can have democratic decision-making, which isn't hierarchical and yet is explicit about the distribution of power. So while it's true that holacracies can quickly turn into hierarchies rather than democracies, it's still doesn't explain why hierarchies are preferred by humans over democracies, while the latter is obviously more acceptable on the state level.

> So while it's true that holacracies can quickly turn into hierarchies rather than democracies, it's still doesn't explain why hierarchies are preferred by humans over democracies, while the latter is obviously more acceptable on the state level.

Democracy on the state level mostly refers to bureaucratic heirarchy where the leaders are (sometimes indirectly) accountable to the electorate; heirarchy and democracy coexist rather than being mutually exclusive. Heirarchy dominates state-level organization with or without democracy, just like it does virtually all other human enterprises.

Democracy, on the state level, seems to be more reliant on formal reservation and delineation of powers and well-institutionalized means of enforcing those formalities than non-democratic heirarchy, which is perhaps why holacracy becomes informal non-democratic heirarchy rather than something democratic.

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#76

Post by js8 »

StreamBright wrote: post #39
js8 wrote: post #35

Hierarchical organizations have many flaws, yet humans continue to largely support them. Why? I think the question "why there are social hierarchies" is the biggest open problem in social sciences. There are many plausible explanations, but no clear winner.

What is the mode of operation you are suggesting to be used instead? On the top of that, what flaws are you talking about in specific?

Same flaws mentioned in the article - lack of accountability in the upper layers of hierarchy, which resulted in loss of human life.

Possible solution is more democratic control (by the people down in the hierarchy) over the people who are in charge, for example an independently elected accountability board with a power to penalize and recall the leaders.

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#78

Post by 0xBA5ED »

js8 wrote: post #68
0xBA5ED wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I think the question "why there are social hierarchies" is the biggest open problem in social sciences This is not an open problem at all. It is a _well_ explained phenomenon.

> It is a _well_ explained phenomenon. There are many partial explanations, but all of them are flawed.

No. It is explained. Self-evident even. There is nothing complicated or deep about why social hierarchies emerge.

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#79

Post by js8 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #75
js8 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can have democratic decision-making, which isn't hierarchical and yet is explicit about the distribution of power. So while it's true that holacracies can quickly turn into hierarchies rather than democracies, it's still doesn't explain why hierarchies are preferred by humans over democracies, while the latter is obviously more acceptable on the state level.

> So while it's true that holacracies can quickly turn into hierarchies rather than democracies, it's still doesn't explain why hierarchies are preferred by humans over democracies, while the latter is obviously more acceptable on the state level. Democracy on the state level mostly refers to bureaucratic heirarchy where the leaders are (sometimes indirectly) accountable to the electorate; heirarchy and democracy coe…

> heirarchy and democracy coexist rather than being mutually exclusive

Exactly, that is my point, in the army they are exclusive though. The people lower in the hierarchy have little say in whether they trust the people upper in the hierarchy.

> Heirarchy dominates state-level organization with or without democracy, just like it does virtually all other human enterprises.

That is true, but that's my point also. Why does it dominate, if we know from our (rather limited) experience with democracy that at least on the state level, it leads to better outcomes?

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#80

Post by arkades »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #67
goatinaboat wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? We give oxygen to injured people because their lungs are impaired. But you can’t force more oxygen into the blood than it can carry, it just doesn’t work like that.

Our blood rarely carries all the oxygen it can. If its suddenly saturated, that means more oxygen throughout the body for metabolic purposes.

Uh, incorrect. Resting o2 sat is 99% in most young healthy people - like aviators. In older people, or the unhealthy, you may see it start to drop due to diffusion or ventilation defects - but barring serious lung disease, neuromuscular defects, severe, severe obesity, etc. that still gives you a resting sat in the mid 90s.

There is also oxygen dissolved directly in blood rather than saturating hemoglobin, but that constitutes a tiny fraction of o2 in comparison.

Please don’t make shit up.

Post reply on HN