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

Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

thestrategybridge.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 211 posts

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#181

Post by _0ffh »

knodi123 wrote: post #155
_0ffh wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law of diminishing marginal utility for example can be logically proven using this method. Alas, knowing it won't make you rich, the world is not that simple.

Whaaa? > the more of something you have, the less of it you want. This phenomenon is referred to as diminishing marginal utility by economists. Okay, but I have a counter-example. Money . The people who have the most sometimes still act like penny-pinchers, and lust after even more, and haggle over the smallest things. Therefore the "law of diminishing marginal utility" is more a rule of thumb than a law.

Um, there's not a whole lot of economic laws that are less controversial than the law of diminishing marginal utility. I'll give you a rough outline.

If you own a good G, that you could use to satisfy either a desire D1, or a competing desire D2, you will logically choose to use G to satisfy the greater one of these two desires - the one with the greater subjective utility to you. Let's assume that is D1.

Now, if instead of 1 you have 2 of G, you can satisfy both D1 and D2. As we have already established that the utility you have derived from consuming the first G to achieve D1 must be greater than the utility derived from consuming the second G to achieve D2, the utility of the additional unit of G is diminished when compared to the previous one.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#182

Post by Ekaros »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #50
lordnacho wrote: post #16

Finally. I remember reading Sun Tzu and thinking "hmm all this stuff is either very specific to ancient China, or unsubstantiated". As in, everyone sounded like distilled wisdom, but it smelled. The thing that was missing I think was that normally when you read a text about something that's trying to make a general point, it cites a whole bunch of historical precedents. "Always drive deep into enemy territory, like X…

It was a primer aimed at first-time commanders (e.g. coddled nobility with zero experience), not an in-depth thing. That would take a more formal education. It's like the popular science blogs of its age.

Also, in that context does it exist in vacuum. Or is there a teacher that could explain the things and attach suitable context.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#183

Post by kjs3 »

feoren wrote: post #180
kjs3 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that's what Americans should agree on, but did you miss the part where certain very prominent Americans have been vocal about how inconvenient the Constitution is and that any provision of it which they disagree with should be 'terminated'? I'm afraid we're not all on the same page wrt the Constitution.

> did you miss the part where certain very prominent Americans have been vocal about how inconvenient the Constitution is and that any provision of it which they disagree with should be 'terminated' Those prominent Americans include the original authors of said constitution: they always knew it would be a living document to be modified via amendments. Constitutional "originalists" who believe we should be totally beh…

I'm not talking about originalists, and I'm not talking about amending the Constitution through legitimate political process. I'm talking about people who feel that parts of the Constitution that they do not like they simply don't have to follow. That's about as unAmerican as it gets.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#184

Post by chaostheory »

_0ffh wrote: post #74
chaostheory wrote: post #43

I’m not sure how Sun Tzu is complete garbage when his strategies were vague and often not specific, so you can adapt them according to the situation To me the problem is that the study of war, like the study of economics or any other social study; isn’t a real science. There is no repeatable theoretical model, including The Art of War. There are no universal laws that always hold true in all situations.

> like the study of economics [...] There are no universal laws that always hold true in all situations I've got great news for you! There are universal economic laws that always hold true in all situations. For example, "man acts". You can't deny that, because denying it would be an act in itself, leading to a (performative) contradiction. From this law, and just a few others of a similar kind, you can build a whole…

If you can’t disprove something with quantifiable data, then it’s not really a theory in terms of science.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#185

Post by knodi123 »

_0ffh wrote: post #181
knodi123 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whaaa? > the more of something you have, the less of it you want. This phenomenon is referred to as diminishing marginal utility by economists. Okay, but I have a counter-example. Money . The people who have the most sometimes still act like penny-pinchers, and lust after even more, and haggle over the smallest things. Therefore the "law of diminishing marginal utility" is more a rule of thumb than a law.

Um, there's not a whole lot of economic laws that are less controversial than the law of diminishing marginal utility. I'll give you a rough outline. If you own a good G, that you could use to satisfy either a desire D1, or a competing desire D2, you will logically choose to use G to satisfy the greater one of these two desires - the one with the greater subjective utility to you. Let's assume that is D1. Now, if ins…

I don't see how this addresses my counterexample.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#186

Post by _0ffh »

knodi123 wrote: post #185
_0ffh wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Um, there's not a whole lot of economic laws that are less controversial than the law of diminishing marginal utility. I'll give you a rough outline. If you own a good G, that you could use to satisfy either a desire D1, or a competing desire D2, you will logically choose to use G to satisfy the greater one of these two desires - the one with the greater subjective utility to you. Let's assume that is D1. Now, if ins…

I don't see how this addresses my counterexample.

Your counterexample isn't one. It's a made-up, incoherent mess, that doesn't show in any way what you claim it does. That starts with the incomplete definition of the law itself, which is part of a single sentence that you pasted off a multi-page Wikipedia article on the topic, which isn't exactly the best source in the first place. Why don't you just try to think through the simple explanatory outline I gave you?

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#187

Post by brazzy »

mcv wrote: post #123
brazzy wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, his advice to live off the enemy's supplies instead of bringing your own (which would be very expensive and cause economic problems that he surprisingly addresses). This is good advice in many cases, and has been done throughout history, but it can also go very wrong. Consider Napoleon's invasion of Russia where Russia just burned down everything in the path of the French army in order to deny them sup…

This is not true at all. Supply lines have existed as long as organised armies have existed. Many major military campaigns have made use of supply depots, supply ports, supply trains (on pulled wagons, long before what we now call trains existed), etc. Napoleon also made use of them. Only, it's very expensive, and it's a lot cheaper to live off the land. Only living off the land also takes time, so if you want to mov…

It's absolutely true, and the only thing I missed and you are not wrong about is that supplying armies via ship was possible, if they only operated near ports. That's exactly why the Roman empire conquered lands around the Mediterranean but never advanced deeply into central Europe or the middle East.

But no, neither depots nor wagon trains can supply a large army over long distances. It's not too expensive, it's impossible, because the animals that draw the wagons (and build the depots) themselves eventually consume more supplies than they can draw.

A force of 2000 men over 100 miles? Yeah, that may be in "doable, but expensive" territory. 50,000 men over 500 miles? Forget it.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#188

Post by steve76 »

_8j50 wrote: post #110
labster wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that quote is just a corollary to this one: "War is the continuation of policy with other means." — Carl von Clausewitz A foreign policy that achieves your aims is better than a foreign war; a functional domestic policy is better than a civil war. But sometimes people won’t compromise and the only policy left is war.

And I don't agree with that point in general except when someone starts being violent against you, a peaceful resolution is not desirable for long term peace. Similar to a school bully or when you get in prison and you start getting picked on. Resolving things peacefully with that bully only lets other bullies come after you later on. But harming that one bully effectively ensures your safety long term.

[dead]

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#190

Post by jcranmer »

mcv wrote: post #123
brazzy wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, his advice to live off the enemy's supplies instead of bringing your own (which would be very expensive and cause economic problems that he surprisingly addresses). This is good advice in many cases, and has been done throughout history, but it can also go very wrong. Consider Napoleon's invasion of Russia where Russia just burned down everything in the path of the French army in order to deny them sup…

This is not true at all. Supply lines have existed as long as organised armies have existed. Many major military campaigns have made use of supply depots, supply ports, supply trains (on pulled wagons, long before what we now call trains existed), etc. Napoleon also made use of them. Only, it's very expensive, and it's a lot cheaper to live off the land. Only living off the land also takes time, so if you want to mov…

Quoting from Bret Devereaux's blog (https://acoup.blog/2022/07/15/collections-logistics-how-did-...):

> Rather than reinvent the wheel here, I’ll note that K. Chase (op. cit.) ran these numbers assuming two-horse 1400lb wagons and found that assuming the army acquired no local food (but could get grass for the horses), for a group of thirty infantryman the first wagon doubles their range from 120 to 240 miles (less really, horses cannot be worked so many days consecutively). Doubling again to around 400 (accounting for horse rest time) requires not two but six wagons for thirty men. To double the range again would require more wagons than men.

By around 3 months of campaign, you need more wagons than men to provide a supply train that doesn't require local forage for your army (but require it for your animals). Supply trains in pre-modern times are less "let's provide all the food for our army on campaign" and more "provide the mobile granary to store everything we're looting for a few days before it's eaten." In premodern times, absent the possibility of naval supply, not foraging the local land for your food is logistically impossible.

Post reply on HN