3 ms·

There are, indeed, many different cases. The article states that "red flags" raised by "Employees with experience" "were ignored" by court jesters. If objecti

There are, indeed, many different cases. The article states that "red flags" raised by "Employees with experience" "were ignored" by court jesters. If objective, it states that knowledgeable folks critics were not neglected as "OK but let's go ahead anyway in order to check the limits". I only see 2 contexts where it may be adequate: A/ periodically poking the limits may be useful in order to be sure they didn't disappear, B/ to search for a way to overcome them. If active experts immediately "raise red flags" one may think that A/ isn't pertinent, because by definition they (right now) cope with the limits and therefore know that they aren't changing/crumbling down (for any reason). B/ is only really pertinent if there is at least a vague new idea about the approach, about a way to tackle the challenge. "Let's try because if we succeed our Great Leader will be happy" isn't a plan, not even wishful thinking.

asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
> if objective There's where the whole chain of observations breaks down. People whose desired course of action was rejected can rarely be objective about the folks who rejected their advice.
- natmaka 7y ago
  In such a case either the journalists didn't do their job (because they should have interviewed those folks, to obtain an explanation about the red-flag rejection), or those folks didn't provide any explanation (it seems probable to me, as the article seems solid and also as I'm unable to find such an explanation in the comments here or even online).
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
    "I, a close adviser to one of the richest men in the world, will given an interview about the failure of my advice to him." Hrm. I wouldn't expect someone in such a position to be eager to be interviewed. It doesn't provide evidence either way in my accounting. Even if they did give an interview, what do you think they would say? "Yeah, we totally ignored the feedback about political risks. Didn't even read it. And it blew up in our faces. Aren't we dumb?" There's no way that it would be admitted. It would be framed as a calculated gambit either way.
    - natmaka 7y ago
      When the the red flag were raised if they had a solid new theory against them, they now can explain it to the journalist. If this new theory isn't dumb, even if it proved wrong, it may save their faces (as there often is some useful lesson to draw from such "this new idea is apparently good, let's put it at test" failure). They didn't. Therefore either the journalist didn't interview them (or neglected their answer), xor they didn't reply because they had no new theory, and their only motive was "let's try to Please the Master, by sheer luck we may succeed and will benefit from it, and in case of failure the Master will not punish because he liked the objective and the approach".

asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago

> if objective There's where the whole chain of observations breaks down. People whose desired course of action was rejected can rarely be objective about the folks who rejected their advice.

natmaka 7y ago
In such a case either the journalists didn't do their job (because they should have interviewed those folks, to obtain an explanation about the red-flag rejection), or those folks didn't provide any explanation (it seems probable to me, as the article seems solid and also as I'm unable to find such an explanation in the comments here or even online).
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
  "I, a close adviser to one of the richest men in the world, will given an interview about the failure of my advice to him." Hrm. I wouldn't expect someone in such a position to be eager to be interviewed. It doesn't provide evidence either way in my accounting. Even if they did give an interview, what do you think they would say? "Yeah, we totally ignored the feedback about political risks. Didn't even read it. And it blew up in our faces. Aren't we dumb?" There's no way that it would be admitted. It would be framed as a calculated gambit either way.
  - natmaka 7y ago
    When the the red flag were raised if they had a solid new theory against them, they now can explain it to the journalist. If this new theory isn't dumb, even if it proved wrong, it may save their faces (as there often is some useful lesson to draw from such "this new idea is apparently good, let's put it at test" failure). They didn't. Therefore either the journalist didn't interview them (or neglected their answer), xor they didn't reply because they had no new theory, and their only motive was "let's try to Please the Master, by sheer luck we may succeed and will benefit from it, and in case of failure the Master will not punish because he liked the objective and the approach".