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

151–160 of 211 posts

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#151

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

eru wrote: post #95
sofixa wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's traditionally the head of state, so King makes sense. In Bulgaria the president is mostly a figurehead with very limited power (basically easily repeatable veto, appoint ambassadors and temporary cabinets when there's no active government pending elections), but is still the commander in chief of the armed forces.

In Britain, you have the Royal Navy, Royal Airforce, Royal Marine, but no 'Royal Army'. That might have something to do with a leftover from the English Civil War. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Model_Army

The UK - as usual - is a patchwork of conflicting traditions.

There is no Royal Army. But all members of the armed forces, police, and certain prominent political appointments, swear an Oath of Allegiance to the monarch.

Note this is not to the country. And certainly not to the people. Not even to the Crown, which is a kind of abstract superclass of British monarchs in general.

The Royal Navy does not have to swear this oath. It exists by direct Royal Prerogative which means it's assumed to be loyal, pretty much by definition.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#152

Post by [deleted] »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #48
runlaszlorun wrote: post #28

As both a former army officer as well as someone who appreciates historical Chinese, it pains me to say that I found it underwhelming. I’m not saying that any one on here is like this, but in my experience it def attracts a certain type who, among other things, have a zero sum, “business is war” mindset that’s a tad creepy. Unlike everyone I know who has actually served .

Sun Tzu's work was aimed at nobled who had zero experience and knowledge in warfare; a lot of it is low-hanging fruit, but you have to build up the basis for these things like "make sure your soldiers have food" and "don't tell your opponent what you're up to" in these people. It's why I don't understand why in the US, the president is also the top military commander. I'm sure they have good advisors and the good one…

[deleted]

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#153

Post by _0ffh »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #105
_0ffh wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Got a list of these laws, and the logically proven theorems that come from them?

A comprehensive one, probably not. But here are a couple of foundational texts.

https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/greaves-human-action-a-tre...

https://mises.org/library/man-economy-and-state-power-and-ma...

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#154

Post by _0ffh »

jrm4 wrote: post #145
_0ffh wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Is this satire? I'm sorry, I legitimately cannot tell anymore. Anyway, if it isn't -- no, there are no universal economic laws, for the very simple reason that "humans are not always rational" and economics is fundamentally about human behavior, in groups, no less.

Rationality is not assumed, and therefore not required. Only purposeful action.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#155

Post by knodi123 »

_0ffh wrote: post #148
snapcaster wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like what? can you name one? If this is true, how come the people that study this aren't rich?

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.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#156

Post by chaostheory »

eru wrote: post #61
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.

> There are no universal laws that always hold true in all situations. You could still apply statistics. That's what people who breed animals or plants do. Every organism is different and individual, too.

I was referring to social studies. Biology on the other hand is a real science. A science has laws.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#157

Post by jrm4 »

_0ffh wrote: post #154
jrm4 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this satire? I'm sorry, I legitimately cannot tell anymore. Anyway, if it isn't -- no, there are no universal economic laws, for the very simple reason that "humans are not always rational" and economics is fundamentally about human behavior, in groups, no less.

Rationality is not assumed, and therefore not required. Only purposeful action.

Oh, please, same thing here.

Let's do us all one better and nail this down.

"Predictable, repeatable action"

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#158

Post by Kranar »

runlaszlorun wrote: post #28

As both a former army officer as well as someone who appreciates historical Chinese, it pains me to say that I found it underwhelming. I’m not saying that any one on here is like this, but in my experience it def attracts a certain type who, among other things, have a zero sum, “business is war” mindset that’s a tad creepy. Unlike everyone I know who has actually served .

I feel like this is the Seinfeld is Unfunny effect, where something that's been woven into the very fabric of a certain field is then found to be underwhelming or cliche, because it's been copied and iterated upon so many times. But 3000 years ago The Art of War was absolutely groundbreaking.

Furthermore, as someone who like you has served in the armed forces, I agree amongst those who serve we do not think of "war is business", those in charge do absolutely think of "war as business".

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#159

Post by Earw0rm »

eru wrote: post #95
sofixa wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's traditionally the head of state, so King makes sense. In Bulgaria the president is mostly a figurehead with very limited power (basically easily repeatable veto, appoint ambassadors and temporary cabinets when there's no active government pending elections), but is still the commander in chief of the armed forces.

In Britain, you have the Royal Navy, Royal Airforce, Royal Marine, but no 'Royal Army'. That might have something to do with a leftover from the English Civil War. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Model_Army

The individual regiments are very often royal titled though. "Royal Artillery", "King's Fusiliers" and so on.

Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)

#160

Post by owenmarshall »

"Amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics." – Omar Bradley (attributed, but who knows who really said it)

"Get there first with the most men." – Nathan Bedford Forrest.

These have served me well in my career. Business problem? Solve it, placing less of an emphasis on how and more on solving it fast and building a pipeline to iterate on it even faster.

Post reply on HN