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

Inside the Soviet Army (1982)

militera.lib.ru

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 116 posts

Re: Inside the Soviet Army (1982)

#81

Post by Theodores »

spartango wrote: post #41
rangibaby wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Combat aircraft. SR-71 is a spy plane.

While it is true that the SR-71 & A-12 were spy planes, and that the GP makes a slightly asinine statement, the pedant (and aviation geek) in me feels obliged to point to the YF-12[1]. The YF-12 was a twin-seater derivative of the A-12 that was developed as a fighter aircraft, complete with a look-down/shoot-down radar and missile bays. The F-12 never made it to production, but a small number high-speed of weapons te…

Just out of interest, was the MiG-25 'all steel' and 'all valves'? As in no electronics as we know them, just valves? I had heard that it was EMP-proof due to the lack of any transistors on board...

Re: Inside the Soviet Army (1982)

#82

Post by GFischer »

simonh wrote: post #69
alexeisadeski3 wrote: post #26

Quote From Part VIII: Soviet Communists are frequently reproached for having attempted to build a socialist society but having produced something which closely resembles a prison. Such a charge is entirely unjustified. In the Soviet Union some of the inmates have larger cells than others, some eat well, others badly. There is complete confusion-a lot remains to be done to tidy up the situation. True socialism, in whi…

The basic point is valid regarding communism and forced equality, but e.g. plenty of countries have very efficient, well funded and cost effective nationalized medical services. It's a particularly poor example to choose to try and make the point. The problem with communism isn't that so many of it's services are nationalized, it's that one-party politics leads to an ossified, excessively powerful, corrupt bureaucrac…

I have yet to see an efficient nationalized medical service.

They are usually MUCH better than the U.S. model (in that everyone has basic healthcare and nobody gets bankrupt), but I wouldn't use words like "efficient" and "cost effective" to describe them.

At least within a democracy, they don't get "that" ossified, but you do get a massive, powerful and somewhat corrupt bureaucracy (at least in my country).

I find it incredible that the waste generated is less than the waste from the U.S. insurance system, yet it is so.

Re: Inside the Soviet Army (1982)

#83

Post by buro9 »

rdl wrote: post #34

(I think you posted this to hn because I posted it to Facebook again, yes?) The really interesting things to me are: 1) Invisible divisions, and the system to split units 2) Hiding top-tier equipment from the West -- even at the cost of not allowing their own soldiers to know what equipment they're supposed to ultimately use. Vs. the US, where soldiers are expected to be intimately familiar with their assigned weapon…

"Role before Rank" is how I laid out a company remuneration and incentives program.

The essence was "to be a senior dev you must already be doing these things". The proof (observed by two senior people and acknowledged by colleagues at and below your level) that you were fully performing the given role meant that you would be given the job title and salary to match.

We felt this was an improvement on other systems as it made it very clear what it meant to the individual. In that they needed to improve, learn things, operate differently, to be able to progress from one tier of recognition to the next and left it up to the individual to say whether they wanted to or not. It also handled the scenario of demotion... failure to maintain a standard of work meant that you'd set your role (and thereby rank) at the step below.

Did this work? Mostly, yes.

Definitely some rough edges when it came to dealing with long-time serving people who didn't (or couldn't) improve themselves. For those people the title and salary seldom matched their expectations.

Re: Inside the Soviet Army (1982)

#84

Post by greedo »

laichzeit0 wrote: post #21
korzun wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ukraine is broke. They owe Russia millions of dollars and have been living on pretty much free gas (courtesy of Russia). I assume you live in US? Do you not find it ironic that you blame Russia for taking this seriously (in their own backyard) while US have been staging government coups within other countries (with multiple death tolls) for decades? And in regards to corruption: "People who live in glass houses shoul…

From someone external to all of this, I don't think the US really has a foot to stand on when it comes to telling the rest of the world what to do militarily. The Iraq and Afganistan wars really leave a bad taste in my mouth. Where are those WMDs that the entire war was based on? I still remember seeing Cheney standing in front of the entire world and showing those bullshit pictures to the UN. They invaded a foreign…

First, you're conflating Afghanistan and Iraq. If you think that the US would sit by while Mullah Omar supported Al Qaeda camps after 9/11, you're greatly mistaken. Though the war in Afghanistan should have never entered a nation-building phase, it's hard to lump it with a war of choice in Iraq.

Also, I believe that you meant Colin Powell speaking to the UN. I don't believe VP Cheney made any presentations to the UN in the run up to the Iraq War.

Re: Inside the Soviet Army (1982)

#85

Post by mu_killnine »

buro9 wrote: post #83
rdl wrote: post #34

(I think you posted this to hn because I posted it to Facebook again, yes?) The really interesting things to me are: 1) Invisible divisions, and the system to split units 2) Hiding top-tier equipment from the West -- even at the cost of not allowing their own soldiers to know what equipment they're supposed to ultimately use. Vs. the US, where soldiers are expected to be intimately familiar with their assigned weapon…

"Role before Rank" is how I laid out a company remuneration and incentives program. The essence was "to be a senior dev you must already be doing these things". The proof (observed by two senior people and acknowledged by colleagues at and below your level) that you were fully performing the given role meant that you would be given the job title and salary to match. We felt this was an improvement on other systems as…

I thought I was the only one in an organization structured like this.

While off topic a bit... I found this structure pretty discouraging.

If you don't promote your developers into the role they are actually fulfilling, it quickly begins to feel like you're taking advantage of them. That is, treating them and giving them the responsibilities of a Sr. Engineer but only compensating them like a typical engineer (or developer).

There's only so many 'atta boys you can give someone before it seems like you're dodging meaningful compensation for their efforts.

Re: Inside the Soviet Army (1982)

#86

Post by abcd_f »

nikatwork wrote: post #6

> The USSR is not Russia or the Russian Empire; it is not an empire at all. > The Soviet Union does not need new territory. > A communist regime cannot feel secure so long as an example of another kind of life exists anywhere near it, with which its subjects can draw comparisons. It is for this reason that any form of Communism, not only the Soviet variety, is always at pains to shut itself off from the rest of the w…

> This is a massive insight.

Don't forget that it was provided by a KGB defector who was sentenced to death and was living under protection of his asylum country. Anything that's not a verifiable fact should really be assumed to have a massive bias.

Re: Inside the Soviet Army (1982)

#87

Post by Stolpe »

nikatwork wrote: post #62
Perdition wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because that is political reality. Do you see any armies marching to protect Ukraine's territorial integrity? Russia isn't a small state that can be easily threatened, and nobody in the West has the stomach for a real war. I bet Russia could take all of Ukraine with no response beyond a boycott and some air-strikes. P.S. The US has done far worse things than what Russia is currently doing in order to keep South Ameri…

How does the US doing bad things justify Russia doing bad things to a territory independent of both? That makes no sense at all. And the fact that Russia can get away with it does not ethically absolve their actions. If we followed your ideas, the Baltic states would never have broken away from Russia. That actually worked out quite well for them.

It doesn't justify it, however it explains it.

Re: Inside the Soviet Army (1982)

#88

Post by buro9 »

mu_killnine wrote: post #85
buro9 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Role before Rank" is how I laid out a company remuneration and incentives program. The essence was "to be a senior dev you must already be doing these things". The proof (observed by two senior people and acknowledged by colleagues at and below your level) that you were fully performing the given role meant that you would be given the job title and salary to match. We felt this was an improvement on other systems as…

I thought I was the only one in an organization structured like this. While off topic a bit... I found this structure pretty discouraging. If you don't promote your developers into the role they are actually fulfilling, it quickly begins to feel like you're taking advantage of them. That is, treating them and giving them the responsibilities of a Sr. Engineer but only compensating them like a typical engineer (or dev…

Agreed. If you don't actually give the recognition and promotion after making it clear what is needed to reach the next level... then none of this works and morale will crash.

We put in place quarterly reviews that were heavily focused on employee improvement, learning and application of that learning. Promotions were automatic and didn't need many levels of buy-in to approve. It was simply "are you doing the job of a senior dev? Congrats, then you are one".

This was also strange as to most it was very different from quarterly or annual reviews they'd encountered elsewhere that had focused on project progress and milestones. The business goal was to build and retain the best team, focusing on that meant the project goals naturally followed.

Re: Inside the Soviet Army (1982)

#89

Post by jotm »

Synaesthesia wrote: post #64
brc wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope your research leads to the correct conclusion that trying to force people into equality leads to the use of force to stop dissent, and leads people to flee or campaign against it. Socialism ends in death and misery, every single time . At this point death and misery is a feature, not a bug that can be fixed.

That's not true, look at Sweden, France, Germany, UK ... all practising socialism. It's helped their people with free health care, education. There are many good things about socialism. The Bolsheviks were dictatorial bastards, no doubt. And many people think Bolshevik communism is the only way to go, it certainly is not.

They're practicing it to a (very) limited degree. People are still allowed to do pretty much anything they want.

Also, USSR was not socialist, it was technically a state capitalism system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

Re: Inside the Soviet Army (1982)

#90

Post by sly_g »

Author of this book has committed treason and famous for his pseudo-historical books, that usually paint USSR in blackest colors possible. No serious historian in Russia takes his works seriously. So I'd question anything that written in the book.
Post reply on HN