Groups never admit failure • Hacker News Board

Re: Groups never admit failure

#241

Post by Aidevah » Thu, Dec 09, 2021, 5:29 AM UTC

mritchie712 wrote: post #199

patrec wrote: post #165

> I’m hard pressed to find examples in history of large groups that said, “We thought A, but the answer’s actually B.” End of the Soviet Union?

Did the group in power decide to end it?

No. The faction that opposed Gorbachev tried to halt and reverse his reforms, and the support of the coup was so extensive inside the party that the subsequent purge after the coup seriously weakened the party so that breakup was just a matter of time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Soviet_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat...

Re: Groups never admit failure

#242

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Dec 09, 2021, 5:35 AM UTC

varjag wrote: post #145

valec wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the A-10 is actually the perfect "fighter mafia" plane aside from its weight. the fighter mafia basically wanted more maneuverability, cheaper planes and CAS than interdiction bombing. A-10 is all of those except light. they were vehemently opposed to optimizing planes for beyond visual range (BVR) combat like by improving sensors or stealth because they considered it "a fantasy." problem is missiles fired 100 miles…

The only reason A-10 is still flying is gun fetishism of certain senators.

[deleted]

Re: Groups never admit failure

#243

Post by monocasa » Thu, Dec 09, 2021, 5:59 AM UTC

valec wrote: post #116

Animats wrote: post #3

A group will never admit they were wrong. A group will never admit, “We made a mistake,” because a group that tries to change its mind falls apart. I’m hard pressed to find examples in history of large groups that said, “We thought A, but the answer’s actually B.” Now that is a useful insight. It's a big problem for voluntary associations. Companies can sometimes change their culture, but it usually requires replacin…

the A-10 is actually the perfect "fighter mafia" plane aside from its weight. the fighter mafia basically wanted more maneuverability, cheaper planes and CAS than interdiction bombing. A-10 is all of those except light. they were vehemently opposed to optimizing planes for beyond visual range (BVR) combat like by improving sensors or stealth because they considered it "a fantasy." problem is missiles fired 100 miles…

I'd go the opposite direction, that an A-10 is a great plane for the kinds of wars America has fought for the past few decades. Until your enemies are BVR, it doesn't make sense for you to have a really sweet BVR plane. It's a flying infantry support tank, and it being scary and loud as it flies by after wreaking havoc as a psychological weapon is half the point.

Yeah, maybe a low flying AC-130 hits the same niche, but we only about twenty or so AC-130s versus almost 300 A-10s in active service.

Re: Groups never admit failure

#244

Post by wahern » Thu, Dec 09, 2021, 6:44 AM UTC

selimthegrim wrote: post #206

renewiltord wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The WSJ had a piece many years ago about this happening to the Muslim Brotherhood as the moderate members, who were more visible and accessible, were arrested forcing the group to become more fundamentalist. Found that interesting. "The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems..." I never did validate if that claim about the Muslim Brotherhood stood the test of time but I found the thing interesting in the m…

the new vintage of Hamas, brought to you by Israeli intelligence

Isn't Hamas an example of the opposite dynamic--of becoming less fanatical? Yes, Hamas leads violent, armed protests from the Gaza Strip. But there's arguably been less violence compared to the armed conflicts they induced on and across the Lebanese border. Once they began to independently govern (not withstanding lack of Israeli recognition) the Gaza Strip they had to soften their stance somewhat, similar to the PLO, which is an even better example.

This points in the direction of another commenter who mentioned that it's a matter of incentives. Yes, many groups are seemingly defined by their particular disposition on certain issues. But toss some strong incentives into the mix and some of those groups turn out to not be quite as intransigent as thought. Although the Hamas and PLO duo shows the limits to that--Hamas responded to incentive, but definitely not as strongly as the PLO did, perhaps precisely because the PLO holds the more moderate ground, and Hamas as a group distinguishes itself from the PLO in that way. I'd wager that if you could magically extinguish the PLO, then it's likely Hamas would either become more moderate or split in order to fill that vacuum.

Re: Groups never admit failure

#245

Post by nawgz » Thu, Dec 09, 2021, 6:45 AM UTC

mlyle wrote: post #47

nawgz wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don’t understand the gymnastics 100 corporations produce 70% of the pollution, this is the common mantra right? I don’t think there’s any gymnastics here. It’s clear that the unchecked power of corporations - structures entirely dedicated to profit - has lead to unchecked damages against the environment as single men are enabled to take terrible actions and then hide (legally speaking) behind the amorphous profit…

> 100 corporations produce 70% of the pollution, this is the common mantra right? If you don't ascribe any of the pollution to the individuals and industries using their products, and only to the initial production, sure. E.g. if you blame the company making the gasoline and not the person burning it in their car. Or the company shipping goods to consumers, but not the consumer ordering and receiving them. I don't vi…

> I don't view this as a particularly useful way to view things, though

Well you are also happy to ignore the coercive nature of capitalism - i.e. “advertising” - and the fact that it simply externalizes all real costs - i.e. “most efficient” claims that make no sense - so I’m not sure your world view is really cogent.

For example, people want blueberries. The blueberry producer in Vancouver has packaging facilities on Vancouver island. They ship a bunch of blueberries away from where they were grown to put them in plastic containers, wasting energy and generating pollution. How exactly is the consumer at fault for the inefficiencies inherent in capitalist supply chains? (In place of inefficiency, directly swap “duplication” if it is illustrative)

> capitalism is really efficient at delivering what end-customers want

I strongly disagree, and once again find it to be a self fulfilling prophecy because you have been wholly consumed by capitalist propaganda. For example, see my point about duplicated supply chains; generalize it easily to duplicated work, wasted man hours on marketing and doing research identical to that being done at your competitors, etc..

Finally, realize you are subscribing to the capitalist view of “want” and “end customer” with your language, and arguing capitalism is “the most efficient economic system” might as well put you on Fox News. It’s propaganda. No other economic system has ever existed in a time of such geographic stability, technical prowess, and abundant healthy layout as now, so the point is completely facile.

You must understand, your own point acknowledges this huge hole in capitalism wrt externalities and the massive hidden costs of something, and additionally ignores the role of government and regulatory capture. Even with your kid gloves naive treatment of the situation, you STILL are forced to admit capitalism only aligns with consumer interest on specific goods sold at specific prices. If the price was true - i.e. included and covered all costs to keep a steady climate state, for an easy target - I highly doubt capitalism would be delivering value.

In its pure lust for profit, and I do mean pure, it has destroyed our globe, created class inequality greater than seen in monarchies, and completely subverted global power structures. This is efficient, but not as an economic system or a method of creating goods for people.

Re: Groups never admit failure

#246

Post by zweifuss » Thu, Dec 09, 2021, 6:46 AM UTC

1cvmask wrote: post #185

Animats wrote: post #3

A group will never admit they were wrong. A group will never admit, “We made a mistake,” because a group that tries to change its mind falls apart. I’m hard pressed to find examples in history of large groups that said, “We thought A, but the answer’s actually B.” Now that is a useful insight. It's a big problem for voluntary associations. Companies can sometimes change their culture, but it usually requires replacin…

The A-10 is truly remarkable as are the drones. Meanwhile the F35 is an overpriced hangar queen that should never have been built (the F22 is a solid stealth plane). https://www.19fortyfive.com/2021/10/why-nothing-even-the-air... Meanwhile corporates are groups and when they fail we call it creative destruction in Schumpeter's words or nowadays disruption.

> Meanwhile the F35 is an overpriced hangar queen that should never have been built (the F22 is a solid stealth plane).

From what I read, the F-22 is the hangar queen. F-35 can do several supersonic missions per day and is not afraid of rain. It is overpriced, though.

Re: Groups never admit failure

#247

Post by catlikesshrimp » Thu, Dec 09, 2021, 6:50 AM UTC

laurent92 wrote: post #238

madaxe_again wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed - my personal experience of this was at my business - I would admit my and our mistakes to the extent that the perception became that I was the source of all of our failures. My partner was and is a person who is never wrong, never fails, never makes a mistake - it’s always someone else who stymied his ambitions, or circumstance, or just bad luck. Never an error. I left, after a decade. It was partly of my own…

My father incites me to apologize often for saying true things that aren’t nice. There are two approaches, and I believe you are pointing something correct. If you apologize on any aspect , it is a well-known effect that you entirely revoke your legitimacy from the group. In the woke culture for example, the first who apologize has to also quit and lose its career entirely, it’s a recurring problem. The second approa…

"If you apologize on any aspect, it is a well-known effect that you entirely revoke your legitimacy from the group"

Modern approach to civil conflict. Maybe there should be a focus-group that teaches employees to acknowledge ("to own", as they preach) their mistakes?

Re: Groups never admit failure

#248

Post by HanaShiratori » Thu, Dec 09, 2021, 6:55 AM UTC

pvg wrote: post #123

Barrin92 wrote: post #111

>I’m hard pressed to find examples in history of large groups that said, “We thought A, but the answer’s actually B.” Being German I would like to think that while there's always opportunity to be more introspective about your history over the last few generations we've done an okay job of correcting some historical mistakes, and that's a pretty decently sized group. >If you want to change the world to a better place…

we've done an okay job of correcting some historical mistakes I don't want to take anything from the generally commendable and impressive German efforts in that regard, as you say, over a period of several generations. At the same time, one has to acknowledge to get there, Germany was physically destroyed, its territory dismembered and occupied, it effectively ceased to exist as a sovereign state for a period, etc, e…

Why would anyone, especially a large group spontaneously change one of their core beliefs? Don't you need some kind of trigger event to enforce the change of mind?

Re: Groups never admit failure

#249

Post by atoav » Thu, Dec 09, 2021, 7:02 AM UTC

renewiltord wrote: post #124

Barrin92 wrote: post #111

>I’m hard pressed to find examples in history of large groups that said, “We thought A, but the answer’s actually B.” Being German I would like to think that while there's always opportunity to be more introspective about your history over the last few generations we've done an okay job of correcting some historical mistakes, and that's a pretty decently sized group. >If you want to change the world to a better place…

Well, Germany had to be made to do that. We had to remake the nation into one that has changed its dogma from "we were right" to "we were wrong". The fact that the populace accepted it is awesome, actually, but it needed to be done to them.

There is the theory that Germans accepted this culture of Vergangenheitsbewältigung because of a reason. While I don't necessarily believe this is a 100% true, it would explain the incentives. The theory goes as follows:

How would Germans be able to tell other Europeans what they need to do in which way if they didn't have the moral high ground of Vergangenheitsbewältigung?

While this might not be true for a big chunk of the German population (which is truly horrified by and sorry for the harm their nation caused), it is certainly part of the reson this has been successfully accepted.

Re: Groups never admit failure

#250

Post by sroussey » Thu, Dec 09, 2021, 7:02 AM UTC

nradov wrote: post #239

Grambo wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a recent story about the Air Force trying to kill off one of their most cost effective aircraft, whether that's evidence of a "fighter mafia" or not is debatable, but it does show the USAF's proclivity for expensive high-tech over cost effective platforms. https://taskandpurpose.com/news/air-force-reaper-drone-retir...

The MQ-9 Reaper is cost effective for counter insurgency missions but it requires reliable high-bandwidth remote control data links to operate. In any conflict with a peer adversary they will shoot down the communications satellites and jam other links, making such drones mostly useless.

Which is why they will become autonomous…