1. Trust - When an employer tells the employee something and then ignores it - then a truth based culture gives in to cynicism. Communications in the company become suspect. Even when there are win-win situations, where cooperation could lead to positive outcomes for both management and workers, a lack of trust means the company cant execute.

Also, this will affect communications with customers and shareholders.

2. Regardless of being right, the author is helping others in similar situations, who can adjust their expectations.

3. The post isn't so much about company vs employee, but competing factions within the company, who are invested in alternative tools/proposals. Promotion is used as a means of making one's faction stronger. This need not be for the benefit of the company or customers. Lobbying will also, of course, affect truth.

Factions might be inevitable (and there can even be good reasons - people genuinely have differences of opinion). But, if the company has good leaders, they will prevent this from erupting into a strong zero-sum conflicts which drown other goals - company's profits, promoting competent people, a culture of trust.

[1] Why should the homogeneous property be true? Because in a group, multiplication by g, pushes the identity e to g. M_g(e)=g where. This is a continuous isomorphism of the shape. So the shape looks the same at g as it looks at a (a neigbhourhood of g looks the same as neighbourhood of e). So an 'X' or 'Y' shapes cant be groups, as there are points which are locally unique, but 'O' shape can be a group. Moreover, M_g can also push a fixed non-zero vector v at e to a vector v_g at g.

[2] The Euler characteristic of the torus is 0. A non-zero vector field has index 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9%E2%80%93Hopf_the... See the special case of the sphere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hairy_ball_theorem

Regarding the 'first-principles' discussion, it is a relative term in usage despite the name. Explaining from a layer of abstraction below normal explanations.

Someone explaining how a computer works starting with machine instructions is doing first-priniciples, even if they wont explain details of atoms. The literal meaning would be almost impossible to implement, for instance none of Newton's work would be first principles given today's knowledge. Similarly, current physics can be subsumed in future principles.

A better description would be that the atman is the consciousness in which physical things or mental constructs can appear and pass away. The nature of pure consciousness is also described as real(undisturbed by time) or ananda/contentment/bliss.

The disidentifcation from thoughts (for instance, seeing them pass by just like cars on road) is an important part of liberation.

(Some on the left who oppose liberalism actually do some versions of this, quoting Mills on colonialism - but that is a genetic fallacy.)

It makes much more sense to say that anytime some teaching/philosophy becomes popular at a continental scale, the people who are involved in conflicts will try to appropriate it to justify their position.

If you want to evaluate the role of the teaching itself, one would have to compare it to alternatives and whether they would be more easily appropriated.

This is a somewhat bleak picture of math. We also have the other phenomena of increasing simplicity. Both statements and proofs becoming more straightforward and simple after one has access to deeper mathematical constructions.

For example : Bezout's theorem would like to state that two curves of degree m, degree n would intersect in mn points. Except that you have two parallel lines intersecting at 0 instead of 1.1 =1 point, two disjoint circles intersect at 0 instead of 2.2=4 points, a line tangent to a circle intersecting at 1 point instead of 1.2=2 points. These exceptions merge into a simple picture once one goes to projective space, complex numbers and schemes. Complex numbers lead to lots of other instances of simplicity.

Similarly, proofs can become simple where before one had complicated ad-hoc reasoning.

Feynman once made the same point of laws of physics where in contrast to someone figuring out rules of chess by looking at games where they first figure out basic rules(how pieces move) and then moves to complex exceptions(en passant, pawn promotion), what often happens in physics is that different sets of rules for apparently distinct phenomena become aspects of a unity (ex: heat, light, sound were seen as distinct things but now are all seen as movements of particles; unification of electricity and magnetism).

Of course, this unification pursuit is never complete. Mathematics books/papers constantly seem to pull a rabbit out of a hat. This leads to 'motivation' questions for why such a construction/expression/definition was made. For a few of those questions, the answer only becomes clear after more research.

Importantly, even once built, it selects the wrong targets, not terrorists or military bases - but regular people who will be faced with scarcity of water and food, as the crops use Indus water. This would be something highly unethical, and also not something sustainable - once visuals of hunger start reaching screens across the world, the force to restart the supply would be strong.

If say, India were to let this slide, the default outcome is another such attack. Given the above motivation of the military to create a conflict and the ideological bent seen in Gen.Munir's speech, the expected outcome would be to repeat till this they get a conflict.

Yes, the deterrence won't be perfect. The Pakistan Army might end up repeating an attack whenever there is a relief from economic constraints(it doesn't have money for frequent purchases of expensive weapons) or from pressure from its allies (who dont want their oil trade or pipelines to suffer). But this means that what India has to do to minimize the number of attacks is to not let an attack slide by with low cost for the army.

The best case scenario would be a peace deal, as was arrived in Vajpayee and Sharif's time, but it was sabotaged by the Kargil operation, for exactly the reason you mentioned - a peace deal marginalises the army.

If by terrorists, we mean the planners of the operation, that trail leads directly to Pakistan. Musharraf, the ex-army chief, is on record saying that the military has funded several militant organizations in Kashmir including LeT. (Osama's haveli in Abbotabad was incidentally also very close to the Pakistan Military Academy). The permission for the operations probably came all the way from the top as the attack came right after a strong statement on Kashmir by the army chief.

What happens to the incentives of terror groups in response to such a policy?

---

The role of money only becomes an issue when conducting a terrorist attack becomes expensive. Missiles and jets consume much more money in comparison to training recruits via an intermediary organization like LeT and sending them across the border to carry out attacks.

A regime in which a terror attack leads to a high pressure, expensive situation for the Pakistani military is completely different from regularly scheduled, train and deploy terror attacks from militants which used to happen earlier.

In that situation, the military has to respond to economic pressure, pressure from allies and pressure from its own people.

This does not make sense. When France attacked Daesh in 2015 after the terrorist attacks in Paris or when the US attacked Afghanistan after 9/11, the objective wasn't to target the exact people who carried out the attacks, but the organization behind the attacks. People can always be found as long as the organization remains.

The goal of the attacks would be to make any future terrorist attack an expensive option for the Pakistani military as opposed to something which can be done routinely. There was a sharp drop in the terrorist attacks in Kashmir after the 2019 confrontation.