In natural world, we see lots of variety. There are millions of types of molecules and another millions of ways they can be arranged (minerals formation). In biology too there are millions of types of organisms. Natural world is full of diversity.
Where do the diversity comes from? I will answer that in this article.
To know means to be able to predict.
In a given situation whats its behavior will be.
If you can (correctly) predict behavior of your subject then you know your subject.
If you cannot (correctly) predict behavior of your subject then you don't know your subject.
Prediction is litmus test of knowledge. Its litmus test means its the only reliable test in existence.
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 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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]
World's biggest problem is logistics. Its biggest as in it has the largest share in the pie - no other problem occur as much time as it.
The logistics problem is: things are not where they are supposed to be. Its space problem.
Materials are not where they are supposed to be. So do information and people.
Things are usually not where they can be used. Things have to be brought there.
Logistics is not just backbone of all operations. Its the operations.
What Is Victory?
You win when your enemy stop fighting permanently. Your enemy stop fighting permanently when it loses its will to fight.
As long as a war is going on there is no victory.
Any system of entries on paper is different from any system of entries in a software.
The major difference is placement of in-between entries. These are entries of a date that you forget at the time when you were supposed to enter them but remember them later. Question is where to put them.
In a software you can always edit those entries in middle or start i.e. wherever they are supposed to be. On paper you cannot do that unless you have left space for them.
Entries on paper therefore can be done either (i) In Sequence, or (ii) In Portions
Why not just use softwares then? There is question about availability - a desktop computer or a laptop is not always in reach - although cell phones are in reach always but poor ergonomics and limitations of user interface on small screens are a problem. These are, however, technical problems which can and likely would be overcome soon by technological progress. For example, holographic displays can be used that solve both ergonomics and small screen problems. What cannot be overcome is psychological problem of finality. Let me explain in a bit detail.
You have two levers. Two levers for your sub-ordinates, and for you.
These levers are: (1) Punishment (2) Rewards.
Giving punishments is more important than giving rewards. This is the point of this article.
This is about things. All things. Anything you can think.
If Its A Thing Then It Can Be Put Into A Category
Its because if its a thing then it has properties and categories are made on basis of properties.
A thing cannot exist without having any property. A zero property is a nothing (no existence).
Note that the meaning of existence is not limited to physical existence here. Anything that you can imagine is a thing. The only requirement is that it has atleast one property.
If you are imagining it then it already fulfill that requirement because when you are thinking about a thing you are necessarily thinking about its properties.
Categories are made on basis of properties. All things that have certain properties are included. Those things that dont have the certain properties are not included. Categories don't work on exclusion principle. They work on inclusion principle.
The use of the word "properties" (plural) is for brevity. Consider it to include "property" (singular) too. Its distracting and ugly to use "properties/property" or "propert(y/ies)".
A category is a human construct. Out of the hundreds of properties things usually have we consider only a handful. If a thing has all of those properties then its included in the category. If a thing don't have all of those properties then its not included in the category.
We don't have to pay attention to where the things that are not included in any category in consideration go to. A category is an arbitrary thing. We can make any category we want, we just have to decide about what properties to include. Thats it. We include properties and because of this all things that have all of those properties get included in the category. Note that I keep saying "include", I didn't say "exclude" when talking about definition of a category. We humans don't have enough brain cells to put each and everything in universe and in our imagination in a category.
We Make Categories For Purposes. These Purposes Are Operations To Perform.
Categories are means to an end, not end themselves. The end is the operations to perform on the things in the categories.
Categories tells us whats common in things, thats all they do. We want to know whether a thing in consideration has certain properties to find out whether we can perform certain operations on them. If we ignore categorizing things and attempt to apply a function (do an operation) on a thing anyway then we will fail if its a real world thing and get nonsense result if the thing is something in our mind.
Value Of A Property Is Not A Consideration For Including A Thing In a Category. Existence Of The Property Is. Existence Of Value In The Property Is Not.
Value of a property can be anything. It can even be a zero. It don't matter what the value is. As long as there is a property to hold the value the thing is included.
The value may be absent because its currently unknown. Often we have to operate on incomplete data. We cannot expect to always fully know a thing. Thats true even in the limited framework in which we see the thing.
The frameworks we work in are always limited because we work on only a subset of all the properties of a thing. We only work on properties relevant to the operations we want to perform on the things.
So, even though we have already limited ourselves to a subset of properties of things in consideration those properties themselves may be lacking in values. Its not just a may be case actually, its the norm, its common. Almost always we have to work on incomplete data. Ofcourse not all of the operations we want to perform can work on incomplete data. Some operations do require presence of all values. We will look at this in detail in the next section.
I will conclude this section by pointing out a case in which even when all the relevant information is present a field (a property) is not filled yet (don't have a value) just because it has not reached point in time where it get that value, and may be it used to have a value in the field but don't currently have one. For example husband-name is a field in a thing called Sara thats of the category Women. It may happen that Sara currently have no husband, may be she never married or may be she used to have a husband but don't have one at present for any reason. The field husband-name for Sara have to have no value. The value is absent. Its not because we don't have all the relevant information about Sara, we do, its just that our information tell us that the field is empty, its definitely empty. We know for certain that the field currently have no value in it.
Distinguish between "not knowing the value" and "the property don't currently have a value" by using "N/A" for "don't know" and "null" for "don't have".
"null" would mean the property don't currently have a value but it can in future or it had in past or atleast it could have in past.
"N/A" should stand for "not available", not "not applicable". Its because if it has to be "not applicable" then the property itself shouldn't exist.
Operations Are Defined For Range Of Values
There are operations that can only be performed on only some values of a property, not on other values. For example division is an operation that cannot be performed when denominator has value zero.
This is to be distinguished from "not defining an operation for a category". For example, Matrices is a category, division is an operation thats not defined for this category. There is no matrix that can divide.
There are however numbers that can divide. Its just one number zero that cannot divide. The operation Division is defined on all numbers except zero.
So, what happens if you try to apply an operation on a range of values its not defined for? You don't get an answer. You get a confusion.
You get two candidate answers for an operation that can have only one result. Its not like solving a quadratic equation which can have two results. A division is an operation that can have only one result.
Its also unlike trying to apply an operation on a category for which the operation is not defined. You don't get any answer or you get a nonsense answer, but you don't get multiple candidate answers for one vacancy of result.
When you apply a right operation on a wrong range you get more candidate answers than number of vacancies in the result. Thats what confusion means. If you can only pick two but have three candidates all of them valid then you are confused. For confusion the choices not have to be equally important or even nearly equally important, they just have to be all valid which they are if they are candidates.
Squad
Squad is a military term. Its civilian equivalent is section.
Squad is sub-division of platoon. Section is sub-division of department.
Squad is unit of action, it can independently perform a tactical maneuver. Likewise a section can independently produce a finished good.
Squad Size
Squad should have 8 to 12 men.
The squad size dont include the officer. The officer cannot be included because a person cannot command himself as that would mean ad infinitum the command tree.
I will argue about the proposed squad size after discussion about sub-units of squad i.e. its composition.
Sub-Units of Squad
Types of Sub-Units
A sub-unit is either a group or a team.
Group
Its when people performing similar functions are put together. The
performance of people in a group can be readily compared with each
other because they are all performing basically the same work just done in parallel.
Team
Its when people performing dissimilar functions are put together. Its done so that their work complement each other's.There is no parallel execution of work in a team. Each member put his share at his turn in the one good or service being produced.
Why The Sub-Units Are Of Different Types? (Why They Are Not All Of Same Type)
The problem that is being solved is The Logistics Problem.
The Logistics Problem
Its the problem of distance. Its the only truely insurmountable problem.
While other problems can be solved by throwing resources on it, for example even the time problem can be solved by execution in parallel, the distance problem cannot be solved, there is no way distances can be reduced.
The only way to deal with it is to prevent it from occurring at the first place.
Prevention of The Logistics Problem
If certain people are needed to work together to finish a job, then they must be placed together. This is how teams are formed. The members would perform different functions, their duties would be of different nature but when combined if they produce the needed output then they belong together.
Note that the above solve the logistics problem about people. They are placed together (in teams) to solve this. But this is not the only logistics problem that exist. The other is about data.
If people performing similar functions are dispersed in teams, that is they are not put together in a group, then the data about them is dispersed. Their performance cannot be compared with each other.
When To Use Groups And When Teams
Groups Are For Magnitude
Groups have advantage of easier management as data to compare is readily available. People performing similar functions can work independently of each other. Also, their output is obviously comparable with each other's.
Its not just that a group is easier to manage than a team. Its also more efficient, orders of magnitude more efficient. There is no dependency between elements of a group, no waiting for others to do their part first.
Groups however cannot solve unanticipated problems. There is no communication between elements directly. When a group works it performs massively, when its stuck its stuck completely and indefinitely.
Note that indirect communication between elements dont solve unanticipated problems. Ofcourse the groups are controlled from somewhere, there is a central point but that hub is not sufficient for passing unfiltered information thats critical for free thinking and thus finding solutions to problems.
Anticipated problems already have solutions found for them, or atleast how to prevent or avoid them. Its the unanticipated problems - problems nobody has think about - whose solutions have to be found.
Teams Are For Complex Tasks
Teams are great for situations when how much you produce dont matter after you have produced little, as thats how much is needed, but how well you have produced it matter a lot. That is when you need more quality than quantity.
When its ok to spend huge chunks of time just figuring out whats need to be done instead of doing it. When majority of workers can afford to sit idle at any given time.
The work done by a team is heavily serialized. Its because of interdependencies between outputs of team members. Its these interdependencies that are needed to solve unanticipated problems, in other words to learn. Its also these interdependencies that make the whole thing grossly inefficient.
A team's trump card is innovation. It only works in complex situations. In simple situations groups always out produce teams. This explains why communism was so hard to beat in its early decades. Its nemesis is innovation which took time. Luckily for teams world is a complex environment so huge innovations are possible.
Not just communism but all dictatorships as well fail too in long term, in a matter of half to one century, as long as its competitors are innovating. In 1984 novel like world where nobody is innovating even communism and dictatorships would survive for centuries.
In middle ages too, where innovations were rare, a king that dont delegate power - a dictator - can continue ruling for long, then his similar sons and so on.
Innovation and Empires
Ottoman empire though not a perfect example as it had some delegation of power down from sultan did lack behind in innovation over the centuries. It started not winning in late 17th century and started losing in 18th century. British empire faced much smaller innovation stalling starting from late 19th century, though enough to cease being an empire shortly after.Germans didnt have innovation stalling till nazis came in power. They got a huge surplus left from 1750s onwards though, waiting for exploitation. This explains their huge initial success till americans beat them to it.
Russians were never innovators till end of stalin era, not near anywhere needed to sustain an empire when competing with true innovators such as germans and americans. This explains their loss of alaska to americans (a sale on surface but money thus acquired wouldnt be needed to be acquired from outside resources if russian empire gave value to innovation), and their massive losses to germans in first world war. They would be literally wiped out by nazis in second world war if americans didnt provided access to their innovations through lend-lease. British would face similar trend though they were able to recover a bit (invention of radar, enigma's code breaking etc) as their stalling wasnt old.
When To Use Groups and When Teams (Revisited)
Role of Storage
To find when to use teams and when groups one just have to see whether output of workers of one function can be stored till workers of another function pick it up. Note that even if all work can be done by groups multiple groups have to be involved. This is in nature of all work. A combination have to be made. A process have to be followed. There are steps. Its cannot all be done in one go.
If after one member put its effort there is immediate need of other member(s)' effort then a team is needed. Its when there is no storage.
Examples:
In masonry, a team of two members is needed. One is the loader and the other is the applier. Since once loaded the cement thats loaded in the bowl need to be applied within minutes or it will become useless there can be no storage. The loader and the applier have to work together in small teams. There cannot be a group of masons and a group of labour working independently.
In a leather factory certain functions can be separated from each other. Hides chemically treated can be stored for days before being transferred to the cutting department. Each of these functions can be performed by its own group.
In a bakery the cooking can be separated from salesmanship. Food when cooked need not be immediately sold, it can be stored for hours.
In a medium or heavy machine gun sub-unit, the loader have to be constantly present and attend the machine gun while the firer takes aim and pull the trigger. If the loader stops for a second the whole machine will stop working.
In a tank, the loader have to work in unison with the firer. The gun cannot have a stock of preloaded shells. Each shell have to be separately loaded.
Scouts can work independent of shooters. A group of scouts can be sent, each one of which can do his own independent reconnaissance and give his own independent report. The shooters too even if move and fire together dont need each other to make their firing. Each one of them can take their own aim and do their own firing. Note that not only the group of scouts is separate from group of shooters, that is, they are not put together in a team or in many small teams, even among a group, as its nature of all groups, the members work independently of each other.
Spear bearers in a greek phalanx though march together and pierce together, are in a group. Each one of them is an independent doer. The arrow shooters are a separate group. The whole phalanx is a unit, a squad. Note that a squad not have to be made only of groups, some of its sub-units can be groups, some can be teams, some can be like mini squads themselves that is groups of teams or teams of groups. The basic units to understand are just two: groups, and teams. Rest is just their combinations which granted can be complicated.
Programmers are a separate group than testers, supposing programmers are each working on their own independent project and no tester is permanently assigned to any programmer. The output of programmers can be stored, in form of computer files for days, months before they can be picked up by testers.
If there is a sub-unit of department that consists of programmers and a tester, working on same project then its a team. Programmers cannot in this case work independently of each other as what changes one programmer make in the project effect work of other programmers, they may have to wait for one to finish working or they may have to reconcile / merge their concurrent changes. Also if no work is yet submitted by any programmer the tester have no work to do and sit idle. A team is great for communication, and that communication is very helpful, even vital, for doing complex tasks, but it comes at cost of efficiency.
Intertwineings
To produce is to make. To make is to combine.
Various functions may need to be combined to produce output. If not various then atleast two functions need to be combined. Most of the time its two functions that need to be combined with a third and so on that provide support services.
Examples:Prime military example is the hammer and nail tactic. While one sub-unit engage and thus distract enemy from distance, another sub-unit quietly go near the enemy to find its weak spot to assault from there resulting in obliteration of enemy.
Any manufacturing and its QA. Also, programmer and tester; copy writer and proof reader; writer and editor etc.
Sales and marketing.
Accounting and finance.
Copier and binder.
Parts of SquadThree groups: Cover, Motion, Services
The two sub-units Cover and Motion intertwine to produce output. The third sub-unit Services is just to provide support services such as transportation, first-aid etc.
The
services sub-unit should be discarded altogether in civilian
organizations. Its because it should be moved up to the head quarter of
the department for proper, more efficient management. In military organizations I argue that its better to have it on squad level for better situational awareness.
Why This Division?
Here is the point:
Never overload your officers with more than five concerns at a time. This matches with dividing all units into upto 3 sub-units, and dividing the sub-units into only 3 elements (people, engines) at maximum. Your officer thus have to keep only upto 3 elements and 2 other sub-units in mind when managing a sub-unit, making the count never exceed 5.
If you want to have more elements in a sub-unit you have to have a senior member of the sub-unit take the lead in absence of your officer. The officer have to manage the entire squad and though he can at the same time when managing the entire squad also manage a sub-unit he cannot manage 2 of them.
If you have a lead in a sub-unit then you can have upto 5 men under him, thus a sub-unit size can never exceed 6 even after including the lead. The lead is not the officer. He is the senior most member of the sub-unit.
If
your officer has less than five concerns at a time then his services are not utilized efficiently.
For vertical concerns make sure that an officer never have to worry about more than two levels at the same time.
A squad/section must have two sub-units in action because of intertwingling. One sub-unit in action cannot finish the task, another sub-unit is needed in action. The third sub-unit which is present only for squads i.e. for military, and is always present for squads, is for support.Support in this article means services (so its not like air support). Support at squad level is transportation and supplying.
Civilians shouldn't have support at section level. All support services should be by department and above headquarters.
Each squad will have its own vehicles, its own drivers. It will also have its own carriers.
Carriers will manually take supplies (food, ammunition etc) to the shooting site and return with used utensils and wounded soldiers.
Transportation
to and from combat zone cannot be outsourced. Likewise supplying
service cannot be outsourced either. This is why a squad will always
have the third sub-unit. Military cannot afford to discard it.
Size of Squad:
As already stated there have to be always three sub-units in a squad, and two sub-units in a section. No other numbers fit in.The Cover Sub-Unit
It has to be the largest sub-unit of the squad. It has to be largest because its function is to provide cover, therefore it has to intentionally expose itself to distract the enemy. It should have enough manpower to sustain losses which can very well happen because of heavy enemy fire it attracts. It also has to maintain its own shooting because if its not doing that then its not providing cover, the enemy wouldn't keep distracted for long otherwise.
In civilian sections the cover sub-unit do the simple part of task and leave the challenging, messed up, first-find-solution-for part of task to the motion sub-unit. Almost all of the time the simple part of task makes up the bulk of the task, and this part is needed to be done quickly to spare resources for the motion sub-unit to do its own processing.
The above - that the cover sub-unit of a military squad have to give heavy fire (as well as take it), and the cover sub-unit of a civilian section have to do bulk of the task - implies that the cover sub-unit have to be the largest sub-unit in all cases and situations.
I suggest the
size of this sub-unit to be 4 to 6 men. Its lead can thus maintain mental image of 3 to 5 concerns. Any more and it would be hard to manage. Any less and its inefficient, also risky. If your center loose then your sides are almost guaranteed to loose as well as the enemy is no longer distracted and thus will provide full blow to the sides. Remember that in a squad there can be only one side - the motion sub-unit - because to have more sides we have to put in more men in a squad and then it would be impossible for its officer to manage them.
unit -> cover sub-unit -> engine
An engine is just a small team consisting of two or three men.
So, our cover sub-unit which itself is a group, can actually be a group of small teams instead of being a group of men directly.
Having already said that a commander can manage upto 5 concerns at a time it don't mean we can have upto 15 men in the cover sub-unit. Note that I already fixed in my proposal the size of cover sub-unit to be between 4 and 6 men, men not engines. Its because even when divided into small teams each person in a sub-unit have to be directly managed by its commander. There can no more level of command below sub-units' leads because that would dilute meaning of commandship to near nothing, and because then the officer of the squad have to maintain more than three levels at a time.
Final point to mention about cover sub-unit is that engines are unique to it. Other sub-units would be divided into men directly always.
It would be the second-largest sub-unit. I propose its size to be between 2 and 4 men. Its lead thus have to maintain only 1 to 3 concerns in mind.
We wouldn't want to increase men in motion sub-unit from that because in a squad its task is to sneak near the enemy, quietly, without giving fire, and in civilian sections the puzzle part of task is never high enough to ask for more manpower.
If we give more men to the motion sub-unit of a squad then its job of sneaking quietly near the enemy to find its weak spots to attack from would become harder.
If we give more men to the motion sub-unit of a section then it increases inefficiency without justification as complex parts never make bulks of tasks. Its the mundane that makes the bulk of civilian tasks.
The Support Sub-Unit
I propose size of 2 to 3 men.
I propose this size because the first man will be the driver when transporting troops, and the second and third men will be on guard duty in the vehicle. If driver is shot then one of the guardsmen take the driver's seat and we still have one guardman left for guarding.
When fighting would be happening I propose that none of these three men take part in fighting, except as reserve and thats to be used either in worse situations where the center is falling back or when though a breakthrough is made additional manpower is needed to exploit it.
When fighting would be happening 1 of the support men would be doing carrying. It means he will be taking supplies (food, ammunition, gear etc) to front and bringing back the wounded. One of the other two who stay behind would providing medical support to the wounded, and the other would stand on guard. If situation is better than that, that is, if vehicle is not threatened then two of the support men can be carriers.
Best Scheme
I would say that best scheme is to have five men in the center (the cover sub-unit) plus the officer himself. However, the officer can choose to go with the side team leaving other 6 men here.
Four men go forward at side (the motion sub-unit) to flank the enemy. If the officer himself is leading them then he take 3 men with him. Otherwise the officer let 4 other men to do the flanking.
The base camp (the support sub-unit) has 3 men.
Always 6 men in the center at start (i.e. before casualties), 4 men at the flank, 3 men in the base. 13 men in all. This includes the officer.
Roles of The Three Sub-Units
Examples:
In an office job a peon has to be present. That peon is more efficiently supplied from the head quarter of the department. So no third sub-unit here.In masonry, both the loaders and the appliers are in the largest sub-unit. Each pair of them make an engine and there would be 3 such engines normally. The other sub-unit would be doing something else such as breaking old walls, bringing stuff from market, refining sand etc. There would be no third sub-unit because peons are neither needed by nor provided to labour. The labour can go eat in hotel in lunch break.
In a bakery, the largest sub-unit is of salesmen. The second-largest is of cooks. You need atleast a cook and a helper so its a full sub-unit thats needed. Cooking is more complicated than just selling already prepared food so its job of a team. Utensils should be washed as soon as the cook is done with them, storage is not appropriate here, so its a team thats needed. Salesmen can work independently of each other, so they together make a group. Note that bulk output of salesmen is not applicable here because its dependent upon customers which are outside the system.
Conclusions:
Financial Accounting Is Grouping Of Data
Come to think of it, prevention of logistics problem about data is whats behind financial accounting. Things are arranged in groups so that you never forget a payment (just look in its account to see whether any payment is made this month, as compared to looking at all of the hundreds or thousands of entries of this month all of them irrelevant except may be one) while at the same time not make any payment twice (same goes for receivals too ofcourse).
Grouping To Find Hidden Patterns And Thus More Solutions Or Improvements Of Anticipated Problems
When data is all already at one place its hard to miss patterns. Moreover, any solution thus found is easily available to all. This is in contrast of having pockets of similar functions performed dispersed in the system. Not only then it would be much harder and therefore much less probable to see patterns and thus find solutions but also any solution found would be limited to its pocket. Wheel will get invented again and again.
This is great for anticipated problems. They are the problems that already exist and are already known. Some general direction is already decided about their solution. Its not great for new problems and for unknown problems. For them teams work great because of independent thinking. Without teams world would be stuck with only one design of wheels and never make space crafts.
While a genius can invent wheel or make the first aircraft he cannot make the whole machinery. He also, alone, cannot make better wheels or jet planes. Knowledge about a variety of disciplines needed to be brought in to make something useful. Thats where teams shine.
Evaluation of Team Members
While in a group all members do basically the same work and thus their performances can be readily compared with each other, in a team members do different types of work, their performances thus cannot be compared with each other.
What can be compared is performance of whole team with another team doing similar task. This is hard to find though. Teams rarely do comparable work.
Even when they do comparable work, because of necessary sharing of rewards and punishments among members the evaluation is not very effective.
Why Masses Shouldn't Choose Their Leader
Why Is A Leader Needed At First Place
Before we delve in details of democracy and compare it with other forms of government its important to understand why a group needs an individual as a leader? Why cannot each person be his own guide? This understanding makes the foundation for this entire discussion.
A leader is needed because masses lack knowledge, expertise to know what to do. They need a path, a course of action. Leader tells them what to do.
Life is a journey in time, into future, in uncharted territory. Events dont repeat, they may rhyme, they may not.
The future is not known. Therefore, as it is, it cannot be prepared for. We need a sketch, a prediction to have a frame to prepare for. We need preparation, without it we most likely fail.
We need a person with vision, who can foresee, predict, correctly, so we can prepare. Without prediction there is no rational choosing of a path. How can one know which path is better if there is no "seeing in future"?
Ofcourse people would say that this, foreseeing, is not all that a leader do. That a leader also have to keep the group together, by providing justice. That without a leader there is no group.
Yes, its true that without a leader there is no group and every individual is on his own. There are so many choices for each action to take in life that after a while there is no reason for group to be together if there is no unity in action. Paths will diverge pretty soon. Each person would be alone in his journey.
I would argue that that, keeping group together by being both just and a swift executor of justice, depends on foreseeing, on correctly predicting in advance what path to take, by knowing relative weightage of consequences of possible courses of action. Its not that members of a broken justice system dont want to optimize, its that they dont know how to optimize. Putting personal benefits over group benefits is because of lack of vision, of wisdom, of not knowing strongly enough that what they are kicking would come bite them back, that they are destroying their ownselves first and most.
How can you tell that a doctor is doing his work correctly if you are not a doctor yourself?
You can hire another doctor to oversee the doctor but then how would you manage this one?
You can ask the patients about the performance but what do they know? They also lack the expertise. They can only tell that they feel better or not but thats not objective. Certain treatments can make people feel very good while their health is deteriorating. Even objective analysis, of blood tests etc wouldn't guide you enough because if you are not a doctor you cannot match that with treatment given by doctor to tell how good the doctor is.
All that you can do is compare your doctor with other doctors who are facing similar patients having similar disease, look at what treatments they are giving and what are the results. Once you do this study and able to see patterns and draw conclusions, you can also predict results. At this point you are yourself an expert, and not just of diseases and their respective treatments but also of doctors; you can make predictions about doctors too in addition of treatments for diseases.
The heading have only one term: Collective Decisions. I will clear up its meaning below. Its important to have a clear meaning of terms before getting in any discussion, to avoid me talking about one thing and you thinking about another (different) thing.
What Is A Collective Decision?
A collective decision is a decision that is made about a group of people and is made by the leader of the group.
There are 3 elements in it:
Collective Decisions That Are Right Cannot Also Be Popular, In General
The Claim:
The claim is not just that they are non-popular. The claim is that they cannot be popular. This is ofcourse speaking in general.
A Proof:
Truth can be proven a thousand ways. Following is just one of the proofs.
This proof is proof by contradiction.
Suppose that, generally speaking, right decisions are popular. That means that most people in the group would have reached that decision themselves.
If a decision is popular then it by definition means that most people like it (thats what popular means). If most people like it then most people could have reached it on their own because thats the only way they would have like it. If whats your inside wants matches with whats available outside then and then only you like whats available outside. Thats the definition of liking.
Having said all above, here is the main point of this article, if people could have reach the right decision on their own then they wouldn't need a leader. The very existence of need of a leader is showing that majority of people are blind and thus cannot see the path, that they need to be guided. Ofcourse they wouldn't like what the leader choose for them. Its because its not their decision, it cannot be their decision. It, by necessity, has to be imposed on them.
A leader is like a sour pill. He is not liked but he cannot be avoided.
A New Series:
I am starting today a new series which I will call _ Findings _. In it I will show numerical findings about stuff. I will do measurements / collect data, then draw conclusions / find patterns.
How Much Space To Leave Between Buildings For Air
Motivation To Find The Numbers:
I live in a city called Karachi. Its a huge city with over 25 million inhabitants. Like all mega cities its has grown wildly in population during the past 4 decades (i.e. since 1980). As a result, and like all mega cities it has grown vertically in buildings, not much on surface area. Apartment buildings that used to never be over 4 floors above ground are now regularly 12 or so floors above ground. Also, old single family houses of one or two floors above ground have been broken down and converted into apartment buildings.
Karachi is very much near equator. Average temperature is between 30 and 40 degree celsius throughout the air except in very small, two weeks to one month, winter in which it drops to between 15 and 20 degree celsius.
The rise of buildings and fall of houses result in over dependence in air conditioners. While in my childhood in the usual 4 floors above ground apartment buildings fans were enough now you have to have air conditioner if you want to have peaceful sleep at night. Thats in a sea-port city. Moreover, houses and 2 to 3 floors apartment buildings that didnt even need fans now need atleast fans.
This dependence on electricity is ofcourse not sustainable given peak oil and general state of economy. Sooner or later the city and by extension all mega cities in world have to either perish or return to the old state of natural ventilation.
What Data Did I Gather:As stated above I am concerned about mega cities and therefore collected data from a mega city, the one that I could do detailed study of, my own city.
Inside the city I visited the old city area that still have some houses and upto 4 floors above ground apartments. I put close focus on cool areas and attempted to find what makes them cool. Is it greenry, distance from sea, oldness of building, water leakage etc?
I then isolate these factors from the most important factor in my eyes: space left between buildings. I did this by focusing on buildings which have these factors roughly same yet one building is considerably cooler than other.
Following are my conclusions.
