komponisto comments on Rationality quotes: October 2010 - Less Wrong

4 Post author: Morendil 05 October 2010 11:38AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (472)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: SilasBarta 06 October 2010 07:58:23PM 3 points [-]

Good point, bad example -- that's probably a case where accountants have the best knowledge of the costs of losing a soldier, and the generals are best capable of communicating it. The military also provides a certain payout to the family for a death.

Still, I find it hard to believe that there aren't some US soldiers for which it's worth spending 300k for the level of protection that a high-tech kevlar bodysuit provides. Special Forces goes to pretty insane lengths to provide protection, although perhaps the $300k unit cost would only be with a bulk discount, etc.

(Of course, it's fictional evidence anyway...)

Comment author: RomanDavis 06 October 2010 08:14:36PM *  1 point [-]

Usually military personnel who have received expensive enough training to justify that are called officers, but there are definitely some exceptions. I wouldn't disagree.

And, now that you mention it, I could imagine the pay out being expensive enough that not paying the money would flatly irrational, but I don't know the number.

Comment author: komponisto 06 October 2010 09:56:42PM 1 point [-]

Usually military personnel who have received expensive enough training to justify that are called officers, but there are definitely some exceptions.

That isn't a counterargument. "Officer" is a (category of) rank, not a job description. A whole lot of actual military "action" work is in fact performed by officers, particularly if it involves high levels of skill. (For example, pilots are usually officers.)

Comment author: RomanDavis 06 October 2010 10:11:13PM 1 point [-]

Yes, they are. But I've never heard a pilot called a soldier. This goes for most jobs performed by people in the O Ranks.

I am using Soldier to be interchangeable with Enlisted Man since I've seen and heard it used that way myself.

I assumed it was used that way in context, but maybe it wasn't.

Comment author: komponisto 06 October 2010 11:07:32PM *  1 point [-]

No, "soldier", at least in U.S. military jargon, means "member of the Army" (as opposed to the other services). The Army chief-of-staff, a four-star general, will refer to themselves as a "soldier".