
Facta non Verba: How to Own Your Enemies - haaen
https://medium.com/incerto/facta-non-verba-how-to-own-your-enemies-ea79a34c9c49#.5gevlc748
======
pdonis
I came across this while reading the article:

"unlike Napoleon and the Tsars, Roman emperors before Diocletian were not
absolutists"

This is one of those little "red flag" moments when you realize the writer is
either ignorant of the facts, or thinks the reader is. Just picking a few that
come to mind quickly: Caligula, Nero, and Commodus would certainly have
answered to the description "absolutist" (and would have been proud of it),
and one could argue that _all_ of the emperors, from Augustus on, were
"absolutist" for at least some reasonable interpretations of that word.

At that point I lost interest in the article; a writer can have his own
opinions, but he can't have his own facts.

(In fact, I'm even more confused by the choice of Diocletian as the starting
point for absolutist emperors: he abdicated.)

~~~
zafka
I had skipped over that, but your comment interested me as I have liked what I
read by Taleb. Looking up "Absolutist" in Wikipedia gives:

Moral absolutism, the position that there are absolute standards against which
moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are either good or
evil, regardless of the context of the act.

This definition appears to jive with what Taleb was saying. Are you using a
different definition?

~~~
pdonis
The word "absolutist" has several possible interpretations; moral absolutism
is only one, and in context I don't think it makes sense. The definition I was
using, which seems far closer to how Taleb appears to be using the word, is
(from dictionary.com--merriam-webster.com gives a similar definition):

"the principle or the exercise of complete and unrestricted power in
government."

In other words, an absolutist about power, not about morals.

------
mirimir
I tried really hard to value this, but failed.

------
badloginagain
I got about half-way through, and I don't exactly understand the point of it.
Is it just supposed to be a shoddy history of the Hashshashins? Is it just
supposed to be focusing on their tactic of proving they could kill a target,
without going through with it?

It seems this article could use a TL;DR

~~~
adriand
I agree with you and the style is very disjointed and unpolished. To be honest
I don't even understand the first line:

> The best enemy is the one you own by putting skin in his game and letting
> him know the exact rules that come with it.

What does this mean exactly?

------
haaen
Why was this flagged?

------
fellellor
I'd like to read this, but the moment I touch the thing on my tablet a window
pops up promoting me to download their app. A lot of websites DJ this these
days, and it's quite frustrating not knowing how to get around this.

