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

US Army Field Manual on Leadership (1990) [pdf]

armyoe.files.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–129 of 129 posts

Re: US Army Field Manual on Leadership (1990) [pdf]

#121

Post by scrum-treats »

dang wrote: post #117
scrum-treats wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> You've tricked the brain into believing a specific version of reality that is not objective reality > Whereas civilians, of course, have a completely accurate view of objective reality with no illusions? It is to laugh. No. It's just different; in some ways radically different than the niche reality of "military." .... That's the point. Are you still in the military because you are sending clear signals that you a…

> you are not in control of your own mind Personal attacks will get you banned here. No more of this please. Also, please avoid perpetuating flamewars - we don't want those here, and you did it quite badly, and a lot, in this thread. See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36935261 .

This is how cults work. Another example is Republicans who believe in Trumpism and QAnon. It is quite reasonable that those persons can use a defense of insanity, because they are brainwashed (i.e., not in control of their minds). It's how cults work.

I didn't make cults. And I didn't make people join them.

Why does providing basic facts break rules of HN?

Re: US Army Field Manual on Leadership (1990) [pdf]

#122

Post by dang »

scrum-treats wrote: post #121
dang wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you are not in control of your own mind Personal attacks will get you banned here. No more of this please. Also, please avoid perpetuating flamewars - we don't want those here, and you did it quite badly, and a lot, in this thread. See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36935261 .

This is how cults work. Another example is Republicans who believe in Trumpism and QAnon. It is quite reasonable that those persons can use a defense of insanity, because they are brainwashed (i.e., not in control of their minds). It's how cults work. I didn't make cults. And I didn't make people join them. Why does providing basic facts break rules of HN?

You made the statement in a personal way. Responding with a generic argument doesn't address that.

Telling someone "you are sending clear signals that you are not in control of your own mind" is super obviously a personal attack, or at least guaranteed to read as one. Please stop doing that so we don't have to ban you—and please stop posting flamewar comments as well. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: US Army Field Manual on Leadership (1990) [pdf]

#123

Post by dang »

scrum-treats wrote: post #120
dang wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You broke the site guidelines egregiously in this thread with flamewar, snark, and even personal attack. We ban accounts that post like this because it destroys what the site is for. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules in the future, we'd appreciate it.

> You broke the site guidelines egregiously in this thread with flamewar, snark, and even personal attack. Please do explain the algorithm that resolves to a True statement here. I can't find a link to the codebase for the sentiment and opinion analysis models. > We ban accounts that post like this because it destroys what the site is for. I don't see warnings on other interlocutor accounts. Seems very one-sided, whi…

The "algorithm" is that I read your comment and saw that it was obviously breaking the rules. I wish I knew how to write software to do that correctly, but I don't.

If you'll review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html with a sincere intent to use this site as intended, it should be easy to see how you weren't doing that.

Re other commenters: everyone always feels like the mods are singling them out personally and treating the other side with kid gloves (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). That's a universal bias, same as it always feels like the cops are singling you out for a speeding ticket when lots of other cars were going fast too.

If you see a post that ought to have been moderated but hasn't been, the likeliest explanation not that we're against you—it's simply that we didn't see it. You can help by flagging it or emailing us at hn@ycombinator.com. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

Re: US Army Field Manual on Leadership (1990) [pdf]

#124

Post by butterlover »

the conventional wisdom was always that the cold war era land battle calculus went to NATO/US because of it's well developed NCO corps. the adversary was thought to be a 'hollow' force of conscripts who lacked professionalism and had few career soldiers who were capable of leading new recruits and effectively implementing the will of higher command. This way of thinking and this manual which enshrines the thinking of the day may seem out of date and was hotly debated at the time seems to be pretty spot on judging the performance of the adversary in Ukraine.

Re: US Army Field Manual on Leadership (1990) [pdf]

#125

Post by scrum-treats »

dang wrote: post #123
scrum-treats wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You broke the site guidelines egregiously in this thread with flamewar, snark, and even personal attack. Please do explain the algorithm that resolves to a True statement here. I can't find a link to the codebase for the sentiment and opinion analysis models. > We ban accounts that post like this because it destroys what the site is for. I don't see warnings on other interlocutor accounts. Seems very one-sided, whi…

The "algorithm" is that I read your comment and saw that it was obviously breaking the rules. I wish I knew how to write software to do that correctly, but I don't. If you'll review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html with a sincere intent to use this site as intended, it should be easy to see how you weren't doing that. Re other commenters: everyone always feels like the mods are singling them out perso…

> The "algorithm" is that I read your comment and saw that it was obviously breaking the rules. I wish I knew how to write software to do that correctly, but I don't.

Got it. Maybe I will give it a shot and share it. I'm not sure which types of bots you're already using but there's ways to orchestrate consensus networks on opinion dynamics to derive a "threat" level (or whatever metric name you want to call it). And that could be used to do things like auto-cut tickets to inspect threads for guideline violations.

IMO, there was a misunderstanding about the term "you": there is an individual "you" and a collective "you".

> Re other commenters: everyone always feels like the mods are singling them out personally and treating the other side with kid gloves

I don't feel like I'm being singled out, more like I feel like there is inconsistency in moderation. Probably because it's hard and there are limited resources and the bots that you do have have thresholds set super judiciously to avoid false-positive flagging (or not; I don't actually know).

Re: US Army Field Manual on Leadership (1990) [pdf]

#126

Post by scrum-treats »

dang wrote: post #122
scrum-treats wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is how cults work. Another example is Republicans who believe in Trumpism and QAnon. It is quite reasonable that those persons can use a defense of insanity, because they are brainwashed (i.e., not in control of their minds). It's how cults work. I didn't make cults. And I didn't make people join them. Why does providing basic facts break rules of HN?

You made the statement in a personal way. Responding with a generic argument doesn't address that. Telling someone "you are sending clear signals that you are not in control of your own mind" is super obviously a personal attack, or at least guaranteed to read as one. Please stop doing that so we don't have to ban you—and please stop posting flamewar comments as well. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what…

It's not a personal attack. It's a statement of cause and effect. When a person is programmed to think and believe a certain way, to the point of operant conditioning, that pattern in the brain fires first. By design. That's the purpose.

In terms of the "flamewar" claim, (1) did you also warn the other person? (2) Just because the truth doesn't make people feel good doesn't make it less true. Stoking a flame can be a subjective experience depending on one's personal position about a topic.

> please stop posting flamewar comments as well

Okay. Noted. Will do.

Re: US Army Field Manual on Leadership (1990) [pdf]

#127

Post by [deleted] »

pdonis wrote: post #51
scrum-treats wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only reason to even have a military is to have the ability to fight and win wars. If your military can't do that, it's not worth having at all. While it is one use case, it is not all use cases. > Is this based on personal experience? If so, how recent? My experience in the military is several decades old, but the above is not a good description of what I experienced then. It is based on multitudes of studies i…

> While it is one use case, it is not all use cases. Really? What other use cases are there for a military? > It is based on multitudes of studies in psychology, neuroscience, sociology, evolutionary anthropology, and the like. In other words, no, you have no personal experience to back up your claims. You should not presume to speak of what you do not know. As for the "cult" accusation, historially, militaries that…

[deleted]

Re: US Army Field Manual on Leadership (1990) [pdf]

#128

Post by dang »

scrum-treats wrote: post #126
dang wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You made the statement in a personal way. Responding with a generic argument doesn't address that. Telling someone "you are sending clear signals that you are not in control of your own mind" is super obviously a personal attack, or at least guaranteed to read as one. Please stop doing that so we don't have to ban you—and please stop posting flamewar comments as well. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what…

It's not a personal attack. It's a statement of cause and effect. When a person is programmed to think and believe a certain way, to the point of operant conditioning, that pattern in the brain fires first. By design. That's the purpose. In terms of the "flamewar" claim, (1) did you also warn the other person? (2) Just because the truth doesn't make people feel good doesn't make it less true. Stoking a flame can be a…

I did warn the other commenter: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36935242. But in general, we need you to follow HN's rules regardless of what other people are doing.

(I don't mean just you personally, of course, but everyone here.)

Re: US Army Field Manual on Leadership (1990) [pdf]

#129

Post by dang »

scrum-treats wrote: post #125
dang wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "algorithm" is that I read your comment and saw that it was obviously breaking the rules. I wish I knew how to write software to do that correctly, but I don't. If you'll review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html with a sincere intent to use this site as intended, it should be easy to see how you weren't doing that. Re other commenters: everyone always feels like the mods are singling them out perso…

> The "algorithm" is that I read your comment and saw that it was obviously breaking the rules. I wish I knew how to write software to do that correctly, but I don't. Got it. Maybe I will give it a shot and share it. I'm not sure which types of bots you're already using but there's ways to orchestrate consensus networks on opinion dynamics to derive a "threat" level (or whatever metric name you want to call it). And…

Ok, I hear you about the word "you" - it's easy to confuse that in general. I often tell people "I don't mean you personally" (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...).

At the same time, if "you" can be misinterpreted as a personal attack, it likely will be - so the burden is on the commenter to disambiguate (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...).

Moderation here is always going to be inconsistent, simply because we don't read everything that gets posted, or even 10% of it - there's far too much. If you see a post that ought to have been moderated but hasn't been, the likeliest explanation is that we didn't see it. You can help by flagging it or emailing us at hn@ycombinator.com.

Post reply on HN