11 ms·

I’m reminded of one of my favorite sayings: You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time. You may want to

I’m reminded of one of my favorite sayings: You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time. You may want to ignore that this this comes from Donald Rumsfeld (he has some great ones though: “unknown unknowns …”, etc.) I think about this a lot when working on teams. Everyone is not perfectly agreeable or has the same understanding or collective goals. Some may be suboptimal or prone to doing things you don’t prefer. But having a team is better than no team, so find the best way to accomplish goals with the one you have. It applies to systems well too.

KnobbleMcKnees 3y ago
That was Donald Rumsfeld!? I always assumed this came from some techie or agile guru given how much it's used as a concept in project planning.
- midasuni 3y ago
  And unknown unknowns is a great way to communicate with stakeholders too
  - roughly 3y ago
    Žižek has a followup to that quote: "What he forgot to add was the crucial fourth term: the "unknown knowns," the things we don't know that we know." I've found it's really critical during the project planning phase to get to not just where the boundaries of our knowledge are, but also where are the things we're either tacitly assuming or not even aware that we've assumed. An awful lot of postmortems I've been a part of have come down to "It didn't occur to us that could happen."
    - munificent 3y ago
      > An awful lot of postmortems I've been a part of have come down to "It didn't occur to us that could happen." Would that not be an unknown unknown?
      - roughly 3y ago
        Usually there's a tacit assumption of how the system works, how the users are using the system, or something else about the system or the environment that causes that - it's not that the answer wasn't known, it's that it was assumed to be something it wasn't and nobody realized that was an assumption and not a fact.
        thfuran 3y ago
        That's just an unknown unknown masquerading as a known known.
    - waprin 3y ago
      I really enjoy the concept of unknown knowns, but I don’t agree with your example, which is an unknown unknown. To me the corporate version of the unknown known is when a a project is certainly doomed, for reasons everyone on the ground knows about, yet nobody wants to say anything and be the messenger that inevitably gets killed, as long as paycheck keeps clearing. An exec ten thousand feet from the ground sets a “vision” which can’t be blown off course by minor details such as reality, until the day it does. Theranos is a famous example of this but I’ve had less extreme versions happen to me many times throughout my career. Another example of unknown knowns might be the conflict between companies stated values (Focus on the User) and the unstated values that are often much more important (Make Lots of Money)
      - roughly 3y ago
        Yeah, you’re right. I was reaching for an example, but yours are much better and better capture the idea.
      - cozzyd 3y ago
        In the case of the Iraq war, the unknown knowns were probably key...
    - 59nadir 3y ago
      I think unknown knowns are more easy to spot when teaching newcomers how the system works. Their questions will sometimes be about things we hadn't even considerered (at least in some time) to be the case, but when you have to spell everything out it is indeed the case. In terms of teaching unknown knowns are critical to identify and instead make known knowns so that everyone can end up with a mostly equal playing field. As an example, there are a lot of unknown knowns that you accumulate over the years in certain lower level languages that need to be spelled out more clearly to someone who is coming at it as a later endeavor. It's entirely possible to spend all your time in a completely managed language nowadays and the concept of the stack, heap, etc., will be largely alien to you. These ideas and their limitations need to be spelled out clearly in order for someone to build the same knowledge base and intuition. Unknown knowns are essentially endless in nature and extremely hard to find unless you have someone who simply doesn't know to basically fall into traps and guide you toward finding your hidden knowledge.
- a_seattle_ian 3y ago
  That it came from Donald Rumsfeld in the context of what we know now and what he surely knew then is why it's such a good quote. The words basically say nothing but are also true about everything. So it can implicit be a warning that there is probably some bullshit going on or someone has a sense of humor and is also warning people while also avoiding the subject - of course just my opinion. How people actually use it will depend what the audience agrees it to mean.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - KnobbleMcKnees 3y ago
    The common use I'm referring to is similar to the OP, which is using it as a framework for assessing risk. In particular, aligning a team on the "known unknowns" is critical to building the confidence and alignment needed as a group to be able to deal with unquantifiable/inestimable risk.
    - a_seattle_ian 3y ago
      I just took a look at that wiki article for Rumsfeld's usage of the "There are unknown unknowns" and I had no idea that he barrowed this phrase to frame his arguments and I was only familiar with that context, unfortunately.
- killjoywashere 3y ago
  As a military officer who was watching CNN live from inside an aircraft carrier (moored) when he said that, being in charge of anti-terrorism on the ship at the time, it was absolutely foundational to my approach to so many things after that. Here's the actual footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REWeBzGuzCc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REWeBzGuzCc Rumsfeld was complicated, but there's no doubt he was very effective at leading the Department. I think most people fail to realize how sophisticated the Office of the Secretary of Defense is. Their resources reel the mind, most of all the human capital, many with PhDs, many very savvy political operators with stunning operational experiences. As a small example, as I recall, Google's hallowed SRE system was developed by an engineer who had come up through the ranks of Navy nuclear power. That's but one small component reporting into OSD. Not a Rumsfeld apologist, by any means. Errol Morris did a good job showing the man for who he is, and it's not pretty (1). But reading HN comments opining about the leadership qualities of a Navy fighter pilot who was both the youngest and oldest SECDEF makes me realize how the Internet lets people indulge in a Dunning-Kruger situation the likes of which humanity has never seen. https://www.amazon.com/Known-Donald-Rumsfeld/dp/B00JGMJ914 https://www.amazon.com/Known-Donald-Rumsfeld/dp/B00JGMJ914
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Indeed, it is very well possible to be both brilliant and an ethically completely unhinged individual.
  - michael1999 3y ago
    I'll support you there. In any sensible reading of Nuremberg, they all deserve to hang from the neck until dead. But the central moral failure was Bush. Letting Cheney hijack the vp search, and then pairing him up with Rumsfeld was a bad move, and obviously bad at the time. Those two had established themselves as brilliant but paranoid kooks with their Team B fantasies in the 70s, and should never have been allowed free rein.
  - sgarland 3y ago
    > Google's hallowed SRE system was developed by an engineer who had come up through the ranks of Navy nuclear power Wait, really? That makes _so much sense._ It also makes me upset that all of my attempts to sway other SRE orgs over to Nuclear Navy practices have been met with doubt. - ex nuke submariner
- twelvechairs 3y ago
  It's from a post WWII psychological theory the 'Johari Window'. Rumsfeld brought the phrase into wider consciousness. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johari_window https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johari_window
sainez 3y ago
Great point about working on teams. For the vast majority of tasks, people are only marginally better or worse than each other. A few people with decent communication will outpace a "star" any day of the week. I try to remind myself of this fact when I'm frustrated with other people. A bit of humility and gratitude go a long way.
- prmph 3y ago
  Hmmmm, I really don't think this is true all (or even most of) the time. It probably depends on the task at hand, but if leading small teams of all kinds has taught me anything, it's that I'd prefer a tiny team (or even one person) who is at least above average competence, and is reflective of the work they are doing, than several people of average or below-average competence. It's eye opening how many people are outright lazy with thought, don't care about the joy of doing something well (apart from whatever extrinsic rewards are attached to the work). Many team members can actually produce negative value. It seems that people who are really capable of (or care about) conscientious, original thought in problem solving and driving projects forward are few. Count yourself lucky if you get to manage one of these people, they can produce incredible value when well directed.
  - eru 3y ago
    Btw, excellent communication can also be the skill that makes a 'star'.
- eru 3y ago
  > Great point about working on teams. For the vast majority of tasks, people are only marginally better or worse than each other. A few people with decent communication will outpace a "star" any day of the week. Depends on what you are working on. Btw, good communication can also make someone a 'star' and elevate the whole team. > I try to remind myself of this fact when I'm frustrated with other people. A bit of humility and gratitude go a long way. That's good advice for most situations.
roughly 3y ago
Rumsfeld's got some great quotes, most of which were delivered in the context of explaining how the Iraq war turned into such a clusterfuck, and boy could that whole situation have used the kind of leadership Donald Rumsfeld's quotes would lead you to believe the man could've provided.
- moffkalast 3y ago
  Could've at least given them some motivational quotes.
- xapata 3y ago
  > could've If someone is 83.7% likely to provide good leadership, how would you evaluate the choice to hire that person as a leader in the hindsight that the person failed to provide good leadership -- was it a bad choice, or was it a good choice that was unlucky? (Likelihood was selected arbitrarily.)
  - whatshisface 3y ago
    >quotes would lead you to believe
  - hluska 3y ago
    Like everything in politics, I think this is a function of what team you cheer for. If your goal was to come up with an excuse to invade Iraq, that person was an excellent choice. If you’re on the other team, what a clusterfuck. Then you add in a party system and it gets more complicated. Realistically, you don’t get to be the United States Secretary of Defense (twice) if you’re the kind of person who will ignore the will of the party and whoever is President.
  - eru 3y ago
    Is that number (publicly) known when you hire the person? If yes, you just evaluate the choice based on that probability (and other things you knew at the time), not on the actual outcome. Prediction markets are one way to make these kinds numbers known.
tedunangst 3y ago
Mattis "the enemy gets a vote" is another good reminder of reality, although people get very angry about it. Useful in terms of security, privacy, DRM, etc.
- walterbell 3y ago
  Product management outside the box.
- roughly 3y ago
  I work in an area with particularly clever and motivated users, and this quote pops to mind now and again when I learn about some of the hacks they’re using to get around some of the more optimistically designed systems they’ve been provided.
Buttons840 3y ago
I like a similar quote from Steven Pressfield: “The athlete knows the day will never come when he wakes up pain-free. He has to play hurt.” This applies to ourselves more than our systems though.
- brookst 3y ago
  I think it’s as applicable to systems. They are all imperfect, they all have flaws and broken parts that need fixing. And we have to use them.
fuzztester 3y ago
"No battle plan survives contact with the enemy." https://www.google.com/search?q=no+battle+plan+survives https://www.google.com/search?q=no+battle+plan+survives
- fuzztester 3y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmuth_von_Moltke_the_Elder https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmuth_von_Moltke_the_Elder Moltke's thesis was that military strategy had to be understood as a system of options, since it was possible to plan only the beginning of a military operation. As a result, he considered the main task of military leaders to consist in the extensive preparation of all possible outcomes.[3] His thesis can be summed up by two statements, one famous and one less so, translated into English as "No plan of operations extends with certainty beyond the first encounter with the enemy's main strength" (or "no plan survives contact with the enemy") and "Strategy is a system of expedients".[18][8] Right before the Austro-Prussian War, Moltke was promoted to General of the Infantry.[8]
  - roughly 3y ago
    I’m reminded of the Eisenhower line: “plans are worthless, but planning is everything.”
    - agrippanux 3y ago
      Also Moltke: “no plan survives contact with the enemy”
      - fuzztester 3y ago
        Recursion. ... Recursion
    - fuzztester 3y ago
      Classic.
    - kaba0 3y ago
makeitdouble 3y ago
I'm thinking about this quote for a while but have a hard time squeezing the meaning, or really the actionable part out of it. The unknown unknowns quote brings the concept that however confident you are in a plan you absolutely need margin. The other quote thought...what do you do differently when understanding that your team is not perfect ? On one side, outside of VC backed startups I don't see companies trying to reinvent linux whith a team of 4 new graduates. On the other side companies with really big goals will hire a bunch until they feel comfortable with their talent before "going to war". You'll see recruiting posts seeking specialists in a field before a company bets the farm on that specific field (imagine Facebook renaming itself to Meta before owning Oculus...nobody does that[0]) Edit: sorry, I forgot some guy actually just did that 2 weeks ago with a major social platform. And I kinda wanted to forget about it I think.
oDot 3y ago
Every time I hear the name Rumsfeld, I am reminded of the time when, for over 10 minutes, he refused to deny being a lizard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XH_34tqxAjA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XH_34tqxAjA
- i_like_apis 3y ago
  Haha. Thanks for sharing that. Rumsfeld definitely has a sense of humor. He’s also one of the best candidates for that type of conspiracy theory. His career history is flabbergasting. Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld#Corporate_connections_and_business_interests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld#Corporate_conn... In addition to all the Bohemian Club, RAND corp, defense and government posts, in the 70s the guy was a CEO in the pharmaceuticals and electronics industries, was a director in aerospace, media and tech. Definitely the type of resume that lets the imagination run wild with, “… wait, was he a lizard person …?”
bmurphy1976 3y ago
I think about this whenever a product lead talks about planning something, dumping it on the dev team, and saying it's the dev team's responsibility to figure out how to implement it. No wonder the part of the company that does this has a very contentious relationship with their product team and is overly oriented around metrics, having to constantly fight for resources and prove they don't have the bandwidth to take on projects. Meanwhile our side of the org has a much more collaborative relationship with our product team. We have our issues for sure, but our relationships are sound. The feedback loop is tight and product pushes back on things as much as the dev team does. Product works with the dev team to figure out what we can do and stays with us to the end. There's much less tossing things over the fence and everybody seems happier.
bachmeier 3y ago
That's the right attitude for an employee. If management says something like that, look for a new job. It's not sustainable to compete with fewer resources than your opposition. There's a reason college sports is going through a passionate realignment right now.
- nostrademons 3y ago
  The way to win with fewer resources than your competition is to convince them it's not a competition. Or even better, to not let them know you exist.
yardie 3y ago
I’m not sure who came up with it first but the nautical expression is, “you sail with the crew you have”
- i_like_apis 3y ago
  Yeah I should have left the Rumsfeld part out because the conversation naturally got distracted. It isn’t accurate to attribute it to him. His was perhaps the most prominent recent version , but he was definitely paraphrasing an existing adage.
batch12 3y ago
Sounds like he may have been a Shania Twain fan - "Dance with the One That Brought You" is the similar phrase I've heard
- dizhn 3y ago
  Let's go back to the 70s. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_the_One_You%27re_With https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_the_One_You%27re_With
coldtea 3y ago
This however is a retelling of centuries old proverbs and quotes (all the way to Roosevel's "do what you can, with what you have, where you are"), and "unknown unknowns" was a concept already familiar in epistemology, but also fields like systems theory, risk management, etc.

KnobbleMcKnees 3y ago

That was Donald Rumsfeld!? I always assumed this came from some techie or agile guru given how much it's used as a concept in project planning.

midasuni 3y ago
And unknown unknowns is a great way to communicate with stakeholders too
- roughly 3y ago
  Žižek has a followup to that quote: "What he forgot to add was the crucial fourth term: the "unknown knowns," the things we don't know that we know." I've found it's really critical during the project planning phase to get to not just where the boundaries of our knowledge are, but also where are the things we're either tacitly assuming or not even aware that we've assumed. An awful lot of postmortems I've been a part of have come down to "It didn't occur to us that could happen."
  - munificent 3y ago
    > An awful lot of postmortems I've been a part of have come down to "It didn't occur to us that could happen." Would that not be an unknown unknown?
    - roughly 3y ago
      Usually there's a tacit assumption of how the system works, how the users are using the system, or something else about the system or the environment that causes that - it's not that the answer wasn't known, it's that it was assumed to be something it wasn't and nobody realized that was an assumption and not a fact.
      - thfuran 3y ago
        That's just an unknown unknown masquerading as a known known.
  - waprin 3y ago
    I really enjoy the concept of unknown knowns, but I don’t agree with your example, which is an unknown unknown. To me the corporate version of the unknown known is when a a project is certainly doomed, for reasons everyone on the ground knows about, yet nobody wants to say anything and be the messenger that inevitably gets killed, as long as paycheck keeps clearing. An exec ten thousand feet from the ground sets a “vision” which can’t be blown off course by minor details such as reality, until the day it does. Theranos is a famous example of this but I’ve had less extreme versions happen to me many times throughout my career. Another example of unknown knowns might be the conflict between companies stated values (Focus on the User) and the unstated values that are often much more important (Make Lots of Money)
    - roughly 3y ago
      Yeah, you’re right. I was reaching for an example, but yours are much better and better capture the idea.
    - cozzyd 3y ago
      In the case of the Iraq war, the unknown knowns were probably key...
  - 59nadir 3y ago
    I think unknown knowns are more easy to spot when teaching newcomers how the system works. Their questions will sometimes be about things we hadn't even considerered (at least in some time) to be the case, but when you have to spell everything out it is indeed the case. In terms of teaching unknown knowns are critical to identify and instead make known knowns so that everyone can end up with a mostly equal playing field. As an example, there are a lot of unknown knowns that you accumulate over the years in certain lower level languages that need to be spelled out more clearly to someone who is coming at it as a later endeavor. It's entirely possible to spend all your time in a completely managed language nowadays and the concept of the stack, heap, etc., will be largely alien to you. These ideas and their limitations need to be spelled out clearly in order for someone to build the same knowledge base and intuition. Unknown knowns are essentially endless in nature and extremely hard to find unless you have someone who simply doesn't know to basically fall into traps and guide you toward finding your hidden knowledge.
a_seattle_ian 3y ago
That it came from Donald Rumsfeld in the context of what we know now and what he surely knew then is why it's such a good quote. The words basically say nothing but are also true about everything. So it can implicit be a warning that there is probably some bullshit going on or someone has a sense of humor and is also warning people while also avoiding the subject - of course just my opinion. How people actually use it will depend what the audience agrees it to mean.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- KnobbleMcKnees 3y ago
  The common use I'm referring to is similar to the OP, which is using it as a framework for assessing risk. In particular, aligning a team on the "known unknowns" is critical to building the confidence and alignment needed as a group to be able to deal with unquantifiable/inestimable risk.
  - a_seattle_ian 3y ago
    I just took a look at that wiki article for Rumsfeld's usage of the "There are unknown unknowns" and I had no idea that he barrowed this phrase to frame his arguments and I was only familiar with that context, unfortunately.
killjoywashere 3y ago
As a military officer who was watching CNN live from inside an aircraft carrier (moored) when he said that, being in charge of anti-terrorism on the ship at the time, it was absolutely foundational to my approach to so many things after that. Here's the actual footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REWeBzGuzCc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REWeBzGuzCc Rumsfeld was complicated, but there's no doubt he was very effective at leading the Department. I think most people fail to realize how sophisticated the Office of the Secretary of Defense is. Their resources reel the mind, most of all the human capital, many with PhDs, many very savvy political operators with stunning operational experiences. As a small example, as I recall, Google's hallowed SRE system was developed by an engineer who had come up through the ranks of Navy nuclear power. That's but one small component reporting into OSD. Not a Rumsfeld apologist, by any means. Errol Morris did a good job showing the man for who he is, and it's not pretty (1). But reading HN comments opining about the leadership qualities of a Navy fighter pilot who was both the youngest and oldest SECDEF makes me realize how the Internet lets people indulge in a Dunning-Kruger situation the likes of which humanity has never seen. https://www.amazon.com/Known-Donald-Rumsfeld/dp/B00JGMJ914 https://www.amazon.com/Known-Donald-Rumsfeld/dp/B00JGMJ914
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Indeed, it is very well possible to be both brilliant and an ethically completely unhinged individual.
- michael1999 3y ago
  I'll support you there. In any sensible reading of Nuremberg, they all deserve to hang from the neck until dead. But the central moral failure was Bush. Letting Cheney hijack the vp search, and then pairing him up with Rumsfeld was a bad move, and obviously bad at the time. Those two had established themselves as brilliant but paranoid kooks with their Team B fantasies in the 70s, and should never have been allowed free rein.
- sgarland 3y ago
  > Google's hallowed SRE system was developed by an engineer who had come up through the ranks of Navy nuclear power Wait, really? That makes _so much sense._ It also makes me upset that all of my attempts to sway other SRE orgs over to Nuclear Navy practices have been met with doubt. - ex nuke submariner
twelvechairs 3y ago
It's from a post WWII psychological theory the 'Johari Window'. Rumsfeld brought the phrase into wider consciousness. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johari_window https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johari_window

sainez 3y ago

Great point about working on teams. For the vast majority of tasks, people are only marginally better or worse than each other. A few people with decent communication will outpace a "star" any day of the week. I try to remind myself of this fact when I'm frustrated with other people. A bit of humility and gratitude go a long way.

prmph 3y ago
Hmmmm, I really don't think this is true all (or even most of) the time. It probably depends on the task at hand, but if leading small teams of all kinds has taught me anything, it's that I'd prefer a tiny team (or even one person) who is at least above average competence, and is reflective of the work they are doing, than several people of average or below-average competence. It's eye opening how many people are outright lazy with thought, don't care about the joy of doing something well (apart from whatever extrinsic rewards are attached to the work). Many team members can actually produce negative value. It seems that people who are really capable of (or care about) conscientious, original thought in problem solving and driving projects forward are few. Count yourself lucky if you get to manage one of these people, they can produce incredible value when well directed.
- eru 3y ago
  Btw, excellent communication can also be the skill that makes a 'star'.
eru 3y ago
> Great point about working on teams. For the vast majority of tasks, people are only marginally better or worse than each other. A few people with decent communication will outpace a "star" any day of the week. Depends on what you are working on. Btw, good communication can also make someone a 'star' and elevate the whole team. > I try to remind myself of this fact when I'm frustrated with other people. A bit of humility and gratitude go a long way. That's good advice for most situations.

roughly 3y ago

Rumsfeld's got some great quotes, most of which were delivered in the context of explaining how the Iraq war turned into such a clusterfuck, and boy could that whole situation have used the kind of leadership Donald Rumsfeld's quotes would lead you to believe the man could've provided.

moffkalast 3y ago
Could've at least given them some motivational quotes.
xapata 3y ago
> could've If someone is 83.7% likely to provide good leadership, how would you evaluate the choice to hire that person as a leader in the hindsight that the person failed to provide good leadership -- was it a bad choice, or was it a good choice that was unlucky? (Likelihood was selected arbitrarily.)
- whatshisface 3y ago
  >quotes would lead you to believe
- hluska 3y ago
  Like everything in politics, I think this is a function of what team you cheer for. If your goal was to come up with an excuse to invade Iraq, that person was an excellent choice. If you’re on the other team, what a clusterfuck. Then you add in a party system and it gets more complicated. Realistically, you don’t get to be the United States Secretary of Defense (twice) if you’re the kind of person who will ignore the will of the party and whoever is President.
- eru 3y ago
  Is that number (publicly) known when you hire the person? If yes, you just evaluate the choice based on that probability (and other things you knew at the time), not on the actual outcome. Prediction markets are one way to make these kinds numbers known.

tedunangst 3y ago

Mattis "the enemy gets a vote" is another good reminder of reality, although people get very angry about it. Useful in terms of security, privacy, DRM, etc.

walterbell 3y ago
Product management outside the box.
roughly 3y ago
I work in an area with particularly clever and motivated users, and this quote pops to mind now and again when I learn about some of the hacks they’re using to get around some of the more optimistically designed systems they’ve been provided.

Buttons840 3y ago

I like a similar quote from Steven Pressfield: “The athlete knows the day will never come when he wakes up pain-free. He has to play hurt.” This applies to ourselves more than our systems though.

brookst 3y ago
I think it’s as applicable to systems. They are all imperfect, they all have flaws and broken parts that need fixing. And we have to use them.

fuzztester 3y ago

"No battle plan survives contact with the enemy." https://www.google.com/search?q=no+battle+plan+survives https://www.google.com/search?q=no+battle+plan+survives

fuzztester 3y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmuth_von_Moltke_the_Elder https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmuth_von_Moltke_the_Elder Moltke's thesis was that military strategy had to be understood as a system of options, since it was possible to plan only the beginning of a military operation. As a result, he considered the main task of military leaders to consist in the extensive preparation of all possible outcomes.[3] His thesis can be summed up by two statements, one famous and one less so, translated into English as "No plan of operations extends with certainty beyond the first encounter with the enemy's main strength" (or "no plan survives contact with the enemy") and "Strategy is a system of expedients".[18][8] Right before the Austro-Prussian War, Moltke was promoted to General of the Infantry.[8]
- roughly 3y ago
  I’m reminded of the Eisenhower line: “plans are worthless, but planning is everything.”
  - agrippanux 3y ago
    Also Moltke: “no plan survives contact with the enemy”
    - fuzztester 3y ago
      Recursion. ... Recursion
  - fuzztester 3y ago
    Classic.
  - kaba0 3y ago

makeitdouble 3y ago

I'm thinking about this quote for a while but have a hard time squeezing the meaning, or really the actionable part out of it. The unknown unknowns quote brings the concept that however confident you are in a plan you absolutely need margin. The other quote thought...what do you do differently when understanding that your team is not perfect ? On one side, outside of VC backed startups I don't see companies trying to reinvent linux whith a team of 4 new graduates. On the other side companies with really big goals will hire a bunch until they feel comfortable with their talent before "going to war". You'll see recruiting posts seeking specialists in a field before a company bets the farm on that specific field (imagine Facebook renaming itself to Meta before owning Oculus...nobody does that[0]) Edit: sorry, I forgot some guy actually just did that 2 weeks ago with a major social platform. And I kinda wanted to forget about it I think.

oDot 3y ago

Every time I hear the name Rumsfeld, I am reminded of the time when, for over 10 minutes, he refused to deny being a lizard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XH_34tqxAjA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XH_34tqxAjA

i_like_apis 3y ago
Haha. Thanks for sharing that. Rumsfeld definitely has a sense of humor. He’s also one of the best candidates for that type of conspiracy theory. His career history is flabbergasting. Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld#Corporate_connections_and_business_interests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld#Corporate_conn... In addition to all the Bohemian Club, RAND corp, defense and government posts, in the 70s the guy was a CEO in the pharmaceuticals and electronics industries, was a director in aerospace, media and tech. Definitely the type of resume that lets the imagination run wild with, “… wait, was he a lizard person …?”

bmurphy1976 3y ago

I think about this whenever a product lead talks about planning something, dumping it on the dev team, and saying it's the dev team's responsibility to figure out how to implement it. No wonder the part of the company that does this has a very contentious relationship with their product team and is overly oriented around metrics, having to constantly fight for resources and prove they don't have the bandwidth to take on projects. Meanwhile our side of the org has a much more collaborative relationship with our product team. We have our issues for sure, but our relationships are sound. The feedback loop is tight and product pushes back on things as much as the dev team does. Product works with the dev team to figure out what we can do and stays with us to the end. There's much less tossing things over the fence and everybody seems happier.

bachmeier 3y ago

That's the right attitude for an employee. If management says something like that, look for a new job. It's not sustainable to compete with fewer resources than your opposition. There's a reason college sports is going through a passionate realignment right now.

nostrademons 3y ago
The way to win with fewer resources than your competition is to convince them it's not a competition. Or even better, to not let them know you exist.

yardie 3y ago

I’m not sure who came up with it first but the nautical expression is, “you sail with the crew you have”

i_like_apis 3y ago
Yeah I should have left the Rumsfeld part out because the conversation naturally got distracted. It isn’t accurate to attribute it to him. His was perhaps the most prominent recent version , but he was definitely paraphrasing an existing adage.

batch12 3y ago

Sounds like he may have been a Shania Twain fan - "Dance with the One That Brought You" is the similar phrase I've heard

dizhn 3y ago
Let's go back to the 70s. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_the_One_You%27re_With https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_the_One_You%27re_With

coldtea 3y ago

This however is a retelling of centuries old proverbs and quotes (all the way to Roosevel's "do what you can, with what you have, where you are"), and "unknown unknowns" was a concept already familiar in epistemology, but also fields like systems theory, risk management, etc.