Наблюйбздушеньки и осьмышлюшечки
Таки всё, шо трэба знати за пöj$$хватибздяцю фифахтиффных монягеjивь
Больше того, годно показано, почему пöj$$моняхватайбздяця неизбежно ведёт к выjибздению общества
In… The English Constitution (1867) Walter Bagehot introduced his famous distinction between the “dignified” and the “efficient” parts of that (unwritten) Constitution. The “dignified” parts existed to “impress the many,” whilst the efficient ones existed to “govern the many.” Bagehot was a journalist rather than a political theorist, and based his ideas on observation: notably of the difference between what a political system appeared to be, and what it actually was, between the formal aspects and the actual use of power.
…
Consider, for example, a state or nationalised electrical generation company in the 1970s. It was probably a public monopoly, and it recruited engineers and technical specialists, offering salaries typical of the public sector. Its officials were scarcely known to the public outside the very top level. By definition, then, those interested primarily in money and self-aggrandisement would look elsewhere for a job. The senior management would be selected from those who were good engineers and managers, perhaps with a leavening of political appointees at the top. There was little requirement to impress the public and the taxpayer with image and publicity: what counted was Bagehot’s “efficiency:” i.e. supplying power.
These days such utilities have mostly been completely or partly privatised, or at the very least turned into simulacra of private companies. In many cases, they are obliged to compete with each other, which they do through marketing campaigns and a blizzard of indecipherable and often mendacious special offers. It’s often impossible to know exactly who really owns your service provider, and indeed (given that few people can manage to live without electricity) the “efficient” part of the organisation’s work scarcely matters to those in charge. Customers can, in theory, change their provider (who in many countries is just a re-seller anyway) but without any guarantees of better service. Effort is thus focused on Bagehot’s “dignified” component, through impressing financial journalists and the stock market, and attracting and subsequently racketing customers. Given that real competition is electricity generation in the same area is effectively impossible, competition thus becomes entirely virtual, where massaging financial results is the main activity of most of the companies.
The above, I suspect, would not be controversial, but it’s worth considering some of the consequences for people who work in such organisations, and might be attracted by them. First, the priorities are financial, rather than real, which means that inevitably those who rise to the top are those best at massaging figures. (This has been the case observably with Boeing.) It also means that technical experts will be under-appreciated and often marginalised, with a corresponding decrease in the capability of the organisation to do what it’s supposed to do (I’ll come back to that point.) So good people will often leave, and many of those who stay will try to get out of engineering and into management, for career reasons. Thus, it appears, for example, that Boeing has simply lost the technical capability to make safe and reliable aeroplanes, and for that matter the western defence industry can no longer produce reliable equipment.
…
Now let’s consider a practical example. How would you define an “excellent” doctor? And is excellence the same as success? Most people would say no. They would say that an excellent doctor deserves to be successful, but that it can’t be assumed that a successful doctor (let us say one who is highly paid and enjoys great social and professional prestige) is necessarily excellent. Yet in fact our society does encourage exactly this view. Thus, for example, the scientist who appears on TV, writes a best-selling book, exploits his or her research staff and manages to get their name on papers they have not contributed to, is not only a “success” in our terms; that person is then regarded as a source of knowledge and wisdom, even as those more, “excellent” scientists (wiser and more knowledgeable) are disregarded.
…
…Whilst in theory the pool of potential recruits has been much widened, in practice the messages sent out by “successful” people today amount to a subliminal incitement to a new generation of would-be sociopaths, focused on narcissistic ego-gratification and the satisfaction of a lust for power and money, They also discourage many “excellent” people from joining organisation or going into politics, because they judge, quite understandably, that they would not like to work in such an environment, nor are they interested in fighting political battles for more status and even more money. And this applies across the board, irrespective of skin pigmentation, genital arrangements or anything else. Sociopaths are sociopaths, and in general sociopaths are bad managers and bad at their jobs. The only skills they have are those related to personal success. Thus, organisations and political systems fail.
…
There are also important consequences for those who work, or might work, in organisations that have forgotten what their telos is. Those who are favoured or promoted will be those who know how to fulfil the parts of the organisation’s functions that are most in fashion, and most valued by its leaders. Massaging financial results, making Ministers look good, manipulating statistics for hospital waiting times or acting as an authoritative-looking mouthpiece for the political leadership and saying things you don’t believe, are more important for your future than doing a good job. A Chief of Defence who smiles and tells the media that of course he can do everything with nothing, or that the latest mad diversity initiative is a good thing, will do well. The one who speaks frankly will be pushed into retirement, and of course this acts as a signal for all those looking for senior positions in the future.
…
<https://aurelien2022.substack.com/p/the-diversity-paradox>
1944
Operation Trinity and Manhattan Project
An B-29 dropped a dummy atomic bomb at Muroc Army Air Force Base in California at the altitude of 24,000 feet. The test bomb considerably damaged the aircraft's bomb bay doors as it exited the aircraft.
The number of British civilian casualties (50,324) became higher than military (50,103).
USS Bluefish attacked a Japanese transport in the South China Sea; all 10 torpedoes missed.
Распоряжения СНК СССР от 3 марта 1944
4799-р
Об обеде Наркомзага (тов. Субботина) отпустить в порядке продажи за-ду № 155 Наркомавиапрома для посевных целей: ячменя - 1 тонну, гороха - 1 тонну и вики - 2 тонны.
4800-р
О роз-и Наркомзему СССР и Наркомзагу взыскать деньгами числящуюся за колхозами Горьковской области задолженность по семенной ссуде и семенам трав в кол-ве 6239 центнеров.
J-öпа топа
Поллитролух: Выполнение поjучений из Пöj$$лания пjезидента пjиведет к икономи$$бздчьськю чJдэ
Всё течёт, только набздяльника в ПаПуÖ$$ыхе как были чмöбздюкамы (см. 1944), так ими и пöj$$дохнут
<https://eadaily.com/ru/news/2024/03/04/sleduyushchuyu-voynu-my-ne-potyanem-hodakovskiy-ukazal-na-ishod-nazhat-na-knopku>