11–20 of 48 posts
I wonder if this being posted here is in any way related to the events which took place on the latest episode of Game of Thrones...
First of all, no, it isn't. Secondly, this could be construed as being on the same continent as a spoiler, which, well, don't do that .
For those who've seen it, they know precisely the content to which I refer, and to those who haven't, I am in no way spoiling because of how vague I remained.
I like the author's careful descriptions of what is good about the document, but it seems like common-sense pragmatism. Surely there are other, equally pragmatic and sensible, documents? (I admit that I don't have any examples, but I am not often exposed to good or bad procedures documents.) Why does this one deserve particularly to be singled out? EDIT: As dragonwriter ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9682195…
Surely there are other, equally pragmatic and sensible, documents? I was reminded of the Four Rules for Firearms Handling. I think you're selling this sort of thing short, however. It's not as if some junior officer just sat down one afternoon and wrote these rules. Rather, they are the end result of a long process of trial, error, disaster, and rewriting.
I don't mean to do so!—although I see how "common-sense pragmatism" can sound derisive. I agree that it is much harder than it might seem for a document not to get in its own way; sort of the procedural version of Twain's "I would have written a shorter letter if I had had more time." I didn't in any way mean to question the value of this document, only its unicity.
I like the author's careful descriptions of what is good about the document, but it seems like common-sense pragmatism. Surely there are other, equally pragmatic and sensible, documents? (I admit that I don't have any examples, but I am not often exposed to good or bad procedures documents.) Why does this one deserve particularly to be singled out? EDIT: As dragonwriter ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9682195…
It is permutations if the order of events is relevant to the outcome. Theoretically, every single step you take may look "correct", but still end up badly if performed in disorder.
To be sure, I agree that the correct outcome is likely to result only from one (or only from a few) of the possible permutations of the correct steps, and "doing the right thing at the wrong time" might as well be "doing the wrong thing"; but, I think, the same is not true of things going wrong (which is of what the author was speaking), where it is unlikely that permuting them will cause a good outcome.
Most formal order documents are like this. You can find tons of operations, warning, and fragmentary orders online, including orders used in combat theaters previously. But be ready for an increasing amount of entropy as you move from formal operations orders to warning orders to fragmentary orders. Often, FRAGOs aren't even typed up in a document, especially in combat arms.
I like the author's careful descriptions of what is good about the document, but it seems like common-sense pragmatism. Surely there are other, equally pragmatic and sensible, documents? (I admit that I don't have any examples, but I am not often exposed to good or bad procedures documents.) Why does this one deserve particularly to be singled out? EDIT: As dragonwriter ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9682195…
Because its good enough to serve as an example, and the author was familiar with it? If there are many equally good examples, and there is value in an example, then there doesn't need to be anything above the other alternatives (and, if they are equally good, there won't be, by definition) to select a particular one -- doing so at random, or by aesthetic preference unrelated to the function is fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is permutations if the order of events is relevant to the outcome. Theoretically, every single step you take may look "correct", but still end up badly if performed in disorder.
I agree, and did not mean to suggest that 'permutations' was absolutely the wrong word, but I think that it is not really what the author meant. To be sure, I agree that the correct outcome is likely to result only from one (or only from a few) of the possible permutations of the correct steps, and "doing the right thing at the wrong time" might as well be "doing the wrong thing"; but, I think, the same is not true o…
No, but there are still different permutation of things that can go wrong, and different permutations (not just combinations) present different challenges, even if none of the permutations converts "gone wrong" into "good outcome".
Ah, brings me back to my Army days and having to memorize variations of these at every assignment before patrolling some of the most uninviting, inhospitable places on the planet.
I like the author's careful descriptions of what is good about the document, but it seems like common-sense pragmatism. Surely there are other, equally pragmatic and sensible, documents? (I admit that I don't have any examples, but I am not often exposed to good or bad procedures documents.) Why does this one deserve particularly to be singled out? EDIT: As dragonwriter ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9682195…
> Surely there are other, equally pragmatic and sensible, documents? (I admit that I don't have any examples, but I am not often exposed to good or bad procedures documents.) Why does this one deserve particularly to be singled out? Because its good enough to serve as an example, and the author was familiar with it? If there are many equally good examples, and there is value in an example, then there doesn't need to…
> "General Orders for Sentries" is one of the finest written processes of all-time.
seems to indicate an almost uniquely special document, whereas what I saw was a well and carefully written document that nonetheless seems not to be unique (though I have no examples to prove my contention).