Why Colonials Never Had Problem Finding Traitors

Colonials - europeans - spread their empires all over asia, africa and americas. While in case of americas a point can be made that its because of their technological superiority, its definitely not the case for asia and africa.

Its interesting to find why civilizations of china, india and north africa, being much advanced than europeans, were subdued. Why cannot their technological superiority even combined with their large populations was able to prevent the colonization.

Authority

Authority is: lawful right on something. 

Its always legal

Authority is always legal, as I am saying in this heading. 

Authority is also always lawful, as i said in definition.

Authority has to be both legal and lawful.  

Why People Friendzone

Once again I am here to tell you what you cannot know

Without deeply understanding a lot of cue

Why do people say to proposals neither yes nor no

Why do they let their lovers hope, in absence of a clear no

Its when they are themselves waiting for someone they are hopeful for 

Whom they want a proposal from or a yes an answer for

But they are not true in their waiting so

They keep you as a second or so

Reasonable vs Rough, vs Wrong Estimates

Lets suppose it says: half. Is the estimate reasonable or rough, or is it wrong altogether?That depends on how you are rounding the readings to get the estimate. 

Put the estimate in perspective of what its comparable to. The estimate is half in our example, so its comparable to quarter and three-quarters. If the estimate was one-third then it would be comparable to one-sixth and half. If 8000 then 4000 and 12000. 

The estimate along with its comparables can be called markers. Markers stretch on both sides. If estimate is half the markers are zero, quarter, half, three quarters, full; and it can go beyond zero and full. For estimate that is one-third the markers are zero, one-sixth, one-third, half, two-third, five-sixths, full. For 8000 0, 4000, 8000, 12000, 16000 and so on.

If the reading is within 0.4375 and 0.5625 then its reasonable to round it to half. Its nearer to half than the middle point (0.375 or 0.625) between 0.50 and 0.25 or 0.75.

If its nearer to 0.375 than 0.50 then its reasonable to round it to 0.375, not 0.50.

Only when estimating roughly can anything nearer to 0.375 than 0.50 be rounded to 0.50, ofcourse only when the reading getting rounded is between 0.375 and 0.50.

The difference between reasonable and rough rounding is respecting the middle point between markers.

Both reasonable and rough rounding are correct. Rough rounding is not wrong, its just unusual, we dont normally go there. We do rough rounding only out of necessity, that is, when other option is not available. If the result has only options: zero, quarter, half, three-quarters, full; and reading is 0.35 then we are forced to unreasonably round it to quarter. Its a long way away from quarter. Its reasonable rounding is 0.375. Since that option is not available we are forced to roughly round it to quarter. Its not wrong. Depending on the situation it may work. If our readings are always in tens, never in units then it may be ok to let go of this much accuracy. 

If you need significant amount of accuracy you have to do reasonable rounding, you cannot do rough rounding. If you only need a general spray of bullets to keep your enemies' head down while your other team make a close approach you dont need a rifle,  you need a machine gun, even as inaccurate as a klashinkov will do. Quick and dirty approach may work. Depends on the situation.

Having said that there are estimates that are wrong altogether. Anything between 37.5 and 50 cannot in our example be rounded to 25. That would not be rough rounding, that would be wrong rounding.

Back to correct rounding no matter its type, the numbers are ofcourse on number line. The number line extends infinitely at both sides so wherever you are on the number line you have two sides. Each marker being basically a number has its sphere of influence, which expand on both sides. 50s sphere of influence, for example, is between 43.25 and 56.25. 75s between 68.75 and 81.25. The left over middle space between the markers 50 and 75 goes entirely to the middle point between the markers:62.5 as its sphere of influence cover that entirety.

What to do about the exact middle point: 37.5, 62.5 etc when doing rough rounding? Just use the rounding rule about it. Round it above. Round 37.5 to 50, 62.5 to 75 and so on.

"To Be Or Not To Be, Thats The Question" What Do It Means?

It means that the question is not about doing, its about becoming. 

If you do a crime then you become a criminal - by definition. If you are thinking about doing something bad then what you are actually thinking about is becoming bad. 

Don't misdirect yourself by thinking that a criminal is one that habitually do a crime. A criminal is one that do a crime, even if its once. A habitual criminal is a level up, he is a criminal as well as one that do crimes out of habit. Note the extra adjective: habitual, it comes in addition of base adjective: criminal. You do crime once and you are a criminal.

When To Be Predictable, When Not

The decision about being predictable - when to be predictable and when not - depends on who you are planning to be predictable (or not to be predictable) to. That is your recipient.  

Your recipient is your enemy if you are making a war strategy. Your recipient is your sub-ordinate if you are making a policy of rewards and punishments for him.

Be predictable when you want the recipient to fall in line. Don't be predictable when you don't want the recipient to fall in line. 

You never want your enemy to fall in line because if it fall in line its power get focused and by that it may get local superiority. 

You do want your sub-ordinate to fall in line, line that you draw, thats aligned with your goals. You do want focus there. 

You never want to take your enemy head-on unless you overwhelmingly overpower it, which you seldom do. You want to strike your enemy here and there, at random. This will force your enemy to spread its forces. Then you will strike at any place of your choosing thats worth taking. You are this way guaranteed to have local superiority at that place. 

You never want your sub-ordinates to not predict you. For your sub-ordinates you want to be extremely predictable so they know what to expect. How else can you control them? If they don't know what you really want them to do you cannot expect them to do what you want. Its your policy about them, that tell them what you want them to do. Your words, spoken and written, dont do the full telling.

Government Organizations Dont Have To Be Inefficient

Yes, government organizations, in general are inefficient; a large number even grossly so. I will still argue in this article that they dont have to be. I will also get to the root cause of inefficiency in all types of organizations

There is nothing inherent in a government organization - as opposed to a private organization - that makes it inefficient. You can say job security but a lot of private organizations such as large corporations, trusts, welfare organizations have a good deal of job security once you stick in them for a couple of years. That couple of years barrier is in government jobs too, your job is not secured from day one in any organization. Small businesses have pretty much job security for life because you would rarely see them firing employees. Thats for public in large. For family members family businesses have pretty much a secured position since start. Yet you dont see same level of inefficiency in the stated private businesses as is common in government organizations. Why?

Suicide of Democracy

The fundamental idea behind democracy is the belief that whatever majority of people decide is right. 

Its this belief that allows democratic leaders - be them representatives of people like in all democratic governments of today, or people themselves as in direct democracy of ancient greece or referendums of today - to change laws. 

The whole question of what should be law is answered differently by different people but it always depend on what the person belief is right. A religious person would believe whatever his religion says is right, and if that person's religion has a set of laws then he would refer to that. Only muslims and jews can do that referring because no other religion has a set of laws.

If your religion don't comes with a set of laws then what other options do you have. You can be an anarchist believing that there should be no society-wide law and everybody should do whatever he feels like. I don't think anybody other than one in ten thousand would be crazy enough to actually believe that this is a viable way of living.

So, if your religion don't come with a set of laws and you are not crazy enough to believe in anarchy what are your options? Think deeply about it and tell me what you found. I cannot find anything other than democracy. 

No, You Don't Identify Yourself

Somebody else do.

Thats...in the definition. You can name yourself, you can pretend to be anybody you want but you cannot identify yourself.

Identification is always, always done by somebody else. Like police identify a person as suspect. Like a spy agency identify a person as a high grade officer or a scientist in enemy ranks having classified information.

[For the readers that don't understand what I am talking about: well, you are lucky to not know about this - the woke culture]