Hacker News Reader

Comment by yters | Hacker News Reader

80/20 rule probably applies to every job.

The whole thing sounds pretty damning until one considers that Enigma was in the end an intelligence operation to place things in perspective.

I wonder if we mostly just hear about intelligence failures. Seems successful intelligence is most likely to be kept under wraps so reliable methods are not disclosed.

I worked at the Department of Justice ~15 years ago. This is the exact reason I got out. My boss who had been in the field and around the alphabet soup of names for almost 30 years said:

"No one will ever know all the times we've done our job well.. but every mistake will get us f*d up the ass."

It’s like running IT in a company. If things go well people are asking what you are doing the whole day. If things don’t go well you get the blame.

really, this isn't different from any job, and not evidence that that it was not a case of "you only had one job!"

Not sure what you're saying here, is it that you got out because your boss was incompetent and delusional, or you got out because he was effective but you needed some sort of external validation despite your work being effective?

Very confusing comment, whichever is true.

I understand that is saying that their good job was not appreciated, but the eventual mistake was always criticised so they just can't win or keep a positive image of themselves. Sounds like a draining job.

On the other hand, claiming that "We didn't see it coming" is the safer and more logical public reaction for most cases. The opposite "We knew that this would happen" is a mine field.

If they knew it; there is an informer. With enough repetitions or forcing rare events to test the reactions, anybody suspicious could be disclosed as mole. And if they knew it, but didn't do anything to prevent a disaster, the public outrage wave would hit they really hard. Better to pretend to be dumb.

There are advantages to everyone thinking your spies aren't very useful.

Wasn't the argument the other way around?

Like everyone thinking your spies are everywhere and know everything?

If your spies are everywhere then it is useful if people think they're no good. If your spies are no good or nonexistent it is beneficial that people think they are omnipresent masterminds.

on edit: fixed typo

Both versions work, depending on the situation.

Generally people having extreme opinions about your abilities positive or negative is good.

Or the whole room 40 stuff in ww1 basically tracking the German High seas fleet in real time.

In this case I'd say it's more like 99/1, only even more so, to the point where using numbers doesn't even make sense. Spies are way more trouble than they're worth, except when they're not. But when they are not, they're worth literally everything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution

Reply on news.ycombinator.com