new | show | ask | jobs Github

amelius 6 hours ago

Both can be true. Incompetence AND malice.

▲

schiffern 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Troublingly, I think he actually does think these ideas are helpful. Is a True Believer any less dangerous?

"Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice."

▲

dylan604 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think True Believer is worse. I would say that if someone is willing to try something while still willing to accept that it might not work but need to confirm they'd be a rational person. A True Believer will not accept that the thing is not working and try to rationalize why others are still wrong.

▲

noir_lord 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They are generally dangerous but they are truly dangerous when what they believe is itself dangerous.

▲

jjgreen 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'll be using that

	▲	hedora 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You’ll like the Simple Sabotage Field Manual too: https://archive.org/details/simplesabotagefi26184gut/page/n1... It helped the allies win WWII. It contains lots of good advice (and the white collar chapter should be required reading in corporate training).

▲

budman1 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

a while back we had an army private as the secretary of defense.

end of the day, his experience as a private meant nothing towards the job. perhaps he was slightly more able to relate to the needs of the troops.

now we have a reserve captain. who was pushed out of the service for extremest views and body art. his experience means he hates the army, and his selection to the post means his political views have been vindicated.

a master of strategy? leader of men in battle? CEO of the worlds biggest institution? nope. he doesn't even understand those roles.