Fragmenti

[Dankan Ajdaho]

[namenski]

Nije bas za na temu o Severnoj Koreji, ali onako, tek zarad uvida u smisaozahumor^tm velikih^tm

 

 

 

 

Ili, posada nosaca aviona Midway oktobra 1965. prigodno proslavlja bacanje 6,000,000-te funte bombi na Seeverni Vijetnam.

Rashodovanom VC soljom prerusenom u bombu.

Poduhvat, operacija je po PS-u dobila i ime - Sani-flush.

 

YT uradak na tu temu pokazuje promenu narativa glede Vijetnama i svojevremenog rata vodjenog tamo:

 

Edited August 21, 2017 by namenski

[Vakula1]

The Beauty and the Baron
a love story between Bečkerek and Berlin
Over the past couple of years the History Department of the
Deutsche Schule Belgrade has provided a platform for historical
discussion aimed at a wider public. In 2014 a sparkling panel
discussion took place between journalists and historians on
Christopher Clarke’s challenging monograph „Sleepwalkers“, followed in 2015 by the
opening of a student-produced permanent exhibition on the fate of the De Majo siblings, in
2016 by a lively debate on alleged Austrian genocide in Serbia during the First World War
and in 2017 by a lecture on the history of ethnic Germans in the territory of former
Yugoslavia up until the end of the Second World War. Just before this year’s summer
holidays two of our students presented a fascinating account of the mysterious fate of a
16th century gun that was once given as a present to Prince Regent Paul by Adolf Hitler.
We would like to invite you to attend yet another presentation of original historical research
on
Tuesday, 26 September 2017, at 7 p.m.
on the premises of Deutsche Schule Belgrad, Petra Čajkovskog 4
Three diligent DSB students have uncovered and documented the unusual love story of a
young Serbian woman, a self-declared communist, whose name will be kept a secret for the
time being, and the Prussian baron Johann Albrecht von Reiswitz, who would later play an
important role in the German military administration in Belgrade from 1941-1944. Among
other places, we shall take you to Dubrovnik, where they first set eyes on each other in 1924
and to Paris, where they continued their amorous adventure.
The event will open with a thirty-minute lecture by a member of our History Department on
the biography of the German baron, followed by the unveiling of a permanent exhibition
dedicated to this unique German-Serbian romantic liaison. The students involved in this
project will acquaint you with the exhibits,
including original love letters.
Our special guest that evening will be the son of
Baron von Reiswitz.
As our seating capacities are strictly limited, we kindly
ask you to register by sending an email to
[email protected] indicating the number of attendees. You will then receive a
confirmation of your booking. There is no cover charge. Light refreshments shall be
provided.
The language of the evening’s programme will be English.
Yours sincerely,
A. Roth, Deutsche Schule Belgrad, 13.09.2017

[Meazza]

рок опера Юнона и Авось,

так называемое тоталитарное государство, 1983 г.

 

[hazard]

https://aeon.co/ideas/why-the-idea-that-the-world-is-in-terminal-decline-is-so-dangerous

 

 

Why the idea that the world is in terminal decline is so dangerous

 

Jeremy Adelman is the Henry Charles Lea professor of history and director of the Global History Lab at Princeton University. His latest books are Worldly Philosopher: The Odyssey of Albert O Hirschman (2013) and the co-authored Worlds Together, Worlds Apart (4th ed, 2014). 

 

From all sides, the message is coming in: the world as we know it is on the verge of something really bad. From the Right, we hear that ‘West’ and ‘Judeo-Christian Civilisation’ are in the pincers of foreign infidels and native, hooded extremists. Left-wing declinism buzzes about coups, surveillance regimes, and the inevitable – if elusive – collapse of capitalism. For Wolfgang Streeck, the prophetic German sociologist, it’s capitalism or democracy. Like many declinist postures, Streeck presents either purgatory or paradise. Like so many before him, Streeck insists that we have passed through the vestibule of the inferno. ‘Before capitalism will go to hell,’ he claims in How Will Capitalism End? (2016), ‘it will for the foreseeable future hang in limbo, dead or about to die from an overdose of itself but still very much around, as nobody will have the power to move its decaying body out of the way.’ 

 

In fact, the idea of decline is one thing the extremes of Left and Right agree upon. Julian Assange, avatar of apocalyptic populism, gets kudos from neo-Nazis and social justice crusaders alike.  He noted to one reporter how American power, source of the planet’s evils, was in decline like Rome’s. ‘This could be the beginning,’ he whispered with a smile, repeating it like the mantra of an avenging angel.

 

Rome’s decline looms large as the precedent.  So, world historians have played their part as doomsayers. At the same time as the English historian Edward Gibbon’s first volume of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776) was published, the American colonists said good-bye to their overlords; some read that as an omen. The First World War brought endism into the modern age. The most famous rendition was the German historian Oswald Spengler’s The Decline of the West (1918). The carnage of Flanders and the influenza plague of 1918 – which wiped out up to five per cent of the world’s population – made The Decline of the West more than timely. Spengler added a spin: he predicted that, by the end of the century, Western civilisation would need an all-powerful executive to rescue it, an idea that autocrats have seized upon with repeated glee ever since.

 

It is almost part of the modern condition to expect the party to be over sooner rather than later. What varies is how the end will come. Will it be a Biblical cataclysm, a great leveller? Or will it be more gradual, like Malthusian hunger or a moralist slump?

 

Our declinist age is noteworthy in one important way. It’s not just the Westerns who are in trouble; thanks to globalisation, it’s the Resterners too. In fact, we are all, as a species, in this mess; our world supply chains and climate change have ensured that we are poised before a sixth mass extinction together. We should worry less about our lifestyle and more about life itself.

 

Declinisms share some traits. They have more purchase in times of turmoil and uncertainty. They are also prone to thinking that the circles of hell can be avoided only with a great catharsis or a great charismatic figure.

 

But most of all: they ignore signs of improvement that point to less drastic ways out of trouble. Declinists have a big blindspot because they are attracted to daring, total, all-encompassing alternatives to the humdrum greyness of modest solutions. Why go for partial and piecemeal when you can overturn the whole system?

 

Declinists claim to see the big picture. Their portraits are grandiose, subsuming, total. Consider one of the all-time bestsellers, the Club of Rome’s The Limits to Growth (1972). With more than 30 million copies sold in 30 languages, this ‘Project on the Predicament of Mankind’ gave alarmed readers a portrait of demise, mapped out with gloomy confidence about ‘feedback loops’ and ‘interactions’. In fact, it shared much in common with the good Reverend Thomas Malthus, including the obsession with diminishing returns. Fixated with the decline of arable land, Malthus could not see sources of increasing returns – at least not at first. Some of his friends eventually convinced him that machinery and colonialism solved the problem of too little food for too many mouths; later editions of his Essay on the Principle of Population (1798) went through contortions to figure this out. In the same way, systems analysts at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology simulated the whole world, but could not admit little pictures of ingenuity, problem-solving and adaptation – some of which had the perverse effect of unlocking so many more sources of carbon that we’d begin to bake the planet several generations later!

 

One dissenting voice in the 1970s was Albert O Hirschman’s. He worried about the lure of doomsaying. Dire predictions, he warned, can blind big-picture observers to countervailing forces, positive stories and glimmers of solutions. There is a reason why: declinists confuse the growing pains of change with signs of the end of entire systems. Declinism misses the possibility that behind the downsizing old ways there might be new ones poking through.

 

Why the allure of declinism if history seldom conforms to the predictions? To Hirschman, it was traceable to a prophetic style, one that appealed to intellectuals drawn to ‘fundamentalist’ explanations and who preferred to point to intractable causes of social problems. For revolutionaries, what awaits is a utopian alternative. For reactionaries, what lies in wait is dystopia. The result is an ‘antagonistic’ mode of thinking, a belief that history swings from one big, integrated, all-encompassing system to another. Compared with modest advances, compromises and concessions – how boring! – the magnificent vision of a complete overhaul has so many charms.

 

The preference for the bold and the big has hazards. The inability to see unheralded achievements and hopeful signs in a frenzy to overhaul can often yield more destruction than construction. Hirschman had seen the toll of declinism before. Growing up in Weimar Germany, he watched his country fall prey to an ‘ideological trap’, and fork into extremes in the early 1930s, as Communists and Fascists agreed to tear down the republic in pursuit of their rival utopias – while disagreeing on everything else.

 

Decades later, Hirschman observed how Latin Americans despaired about the prospects for democratic reform. Their slide into what he called ‘fracasomanía’ – the propensity to see failures everywhere – blotted out real, incremental advances and achievements that fell short of high expectations. And the reason they fell short was because Latin America’s decline had gripped democratic reformism. The result was to put more faith in ever-more extreme views and the temptations of direct action. Students at the University of Buenos Aires joined the ranks of urban guerrillas. At the other end of the spectrum, Argentine reactionaries bemoaned the end of Western civilisation and turned to paramilitary death squads. When the coup d’état finally came in March of 1976, the military junta baptised itself as the ‘process of national re-organisation’. As close friends slipped into hiding or fled, Hirschman felt pangs of déjà vu. He began to have nightmares about the ideological traps of his youth. When German publishers asked him to write a special preface to the German translation of his classic Exit, Voice, and Loyalty (1970), memories of Berlin 1933 came storming back.

 

The problem with declinism is that it confirms the virtues of our highest, impossible solutions to fundamental problems. It also confirms the disappointments we harbour in the changes we have actually made. This is not to say there aren’t deep-seated problems. But seeing them as evidence of ineluctable demise can impoverish our imaginations by luring us to the sirens of either total change or fatalism.

[hazard]

https://medium.com/incerto/how-to-be-rational-about-rationality-432e96dd4d1a

 

 

Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Aug 21

How to be Rational about Rationality

 

Rory Sutherland claims that the real function for swimming pools is allowing the middle class to sit around in bathing suits without looking ridiculous. Same with New York restaurants: you think their mission is to feed people, but that’s not what they do. They are in the business of selling you overpriced liquor or Great Tuscan wines by the glass, yet get you into the door by serving you your low-carb (or low-something) dishes at breakeven cost. (This business model, of course, fails to work in Saudi Arabia).

 

So when we look at religion and, to some extent ancestral superstitions, we should consider what purpose they serve, rather than focusing on the notion of “belief”, epistemic belief in its strict scientific definition. In science, belief is literal belief; it is right or wrong, never metaphorical. In real life, belief is an instrument to do things, not the end product. This is similar to vision: the purpose of your eyes is to orient you in the best possible way, and get you out of trouble when needed, or help you find a prey at distance. Your eyes are not sensors aimed at getting the electromagnetic spectrum of reality. Their job description is not to produce the most accurate scientific representation of reality; rather the most useful one for survival.

 

Ocular Deception

 

Our perceptional apparatus makes mistakes –distortions — in order to lead to more precise actions on our parts: ocular deception, it turns out, is a necessary thing. Greek and Roman architects misrepresent the columns of the temples, by tilting them inward, in order to give us the impression that the columns are straight. As Vitruvius explains, the aim is to “counteract the visual deception by an change of proportions”. A distortion is meant to bring about an enhancement of your aesthetic experience. The floor of the Parthenon is curved in reality so we can see it straight. The columns are in truth unevenly spaced, so we can see them lined up like a marching Russian division in a parade.

 

Should one go lodge a complain with the Greek Tourism Office claiming that the columns are not vertical and someone is taking advantage of our visual weaknesses?

 

Ergodicity First

 

The same applies to distortions of beliefs. Is this visual deceit any different from leading someone to believe in Santa Claus, if it enhances his or her holiday aesthetic experience? No, unless the person engages in actions that ends up harming him or her.

 

In that sense harboring superstitions is not irrational by any metric: nobody has managed to reinvent a metric for rationality based on process. Actions that harm you are observable.

 

I have shown that, unless one has an overblown and (as with Greek columns), a very unrealistic representation of some tail risks, one cannot survive –all it takes is a single event for the irreversible exit from among us. Is selective paranoia “irrational” if those individuals and populations who don’t have it end up dying or extinct, respectively?

 

A statement that will orient us for the rest of the book

 

Survival comes first, truth, understanding, and science later

 

In other words, you do not need science to survive (we’ve done it for several hundred million years) , but you need to survive to do science. As your grandmother would have said, better safe than sorry. This precedence is well understood by traders and people in the real world, as per Warren Buffet expression “to make money you must first survive” –skin in the game again; those of us who take risks have their priorities firmer than vague textbook notions such as “truth”. More technically, this brings us again to the ergodic property (I keep my promise to explain it in detail, but we are not ready yet): for the world to be “ergodic”, there needs to be no absorbing barrier, no substantial irreversibilities.

 

And what do we mean by “survival”? Survival of whom? Of you? Your family? Your tribe? Humanity? We will get into the details later but note for now that I have a finite shelf life; my survival is not as important as that of things that do not have a limited life expectancy, such as mankind or planet earth. Hence the more “systemic”, the more important such a survival becomes.

 

***

 

Three rigorous thinkers will orient my thinking on the matter: the cognitive scientist and polymath Herb Simon, pioneer of Artificial Intelligence, and the derived school of thought led by Gerd Gigerenzer, on one hand, and the mathematician, logician and decision theorist Ken Binmore who spent his life formulating the logical foundations of rationality.

 

From Simon to Gigerenzer

 

Simon formulated the notion now known as bounded rationality: we cannot possibly measure and assess everything as if we were a computer; we therefore produce, under evolutionary pressures, some shortcuts and distortions. Our knowledge of the world is fundamentally incomplete, so we need to avoid getting in unanticipated trouble. Even if our knowledge of the world were complete, it would still be computationally near-impossible to produce precise, unbiased understanding of reality. A fertile research program on ecological rationality came out of it, mostly organized and led by Gerd Gigerenzer, mapping how many things we do that appear, on the surface, illogical have deeper reasons.

 

Ken Binmore

 

As to Ken Binmore, he showed that the concept casually dubbed “rational” is ill-defined, in fact so ill-defined that much of the uses of the term are just gibberish. There is nothing particularly irrational in beliefs per se (given that they can be shortcuts and instrumental to something else): to him everything lies in the notion of “revealed preferences”, which we explain next.

 

Binmore also saw that criticism of the “rational” man as posited by economic theory is often a strawman argument distorting the theory in order to bring it down. He recounts that economic theory, as posited in the original texts, is not as strict in its definition of “utility”, that is, the satisfaction a consumer and a decision-maker derive from a certain outcome. Satisfaction does not necessarily have to be monetary. There is nothing irrational, according to economic theory, in giving your money to a stranger, if that’s what makes you tick. And don’t try to invoke Adam Smith: he was a philosopher not an accountant; he never equated human interests and aims to narrow accounting book entries.

 

Revelation of Preferences

 

Next let us develop the following three points:

 

Judging people on their beliefs is not scientific

 

There is no such thing as “rationality” of a belief, there is rationality of action

 

The rationality of an action can only be judged by evolutionary considerations

 

The axiom of revelation of preferences states the following: you will not have an idea about what people really think, what predicts people’s actions, merely by asking them –they themselves don’t know. What matters, in the end, is what they pay for goods, not what they say they “think” about them, or what are the reasons they give you or themselves for that. (Think about it: revelation of preferences is skin in the game). Even psychologists get it; in their experiments, their procedures require that actual dollars be spent for the test to be “scientific”. The subjects are given a monetary amount, and they watch how he or she formulates choices by spending them. However, a large share of psychologists fughedabout the point when they start bloviating about rationality. They revert to judging beliefs rather than action.

 

For beliefs are … cheap talk. A foundational principle of decision theory (and one that is at the basis of neoclassical economics, rational choice, and similar disciplines) is that what goes on in the head of people isn’t the business of science. First, what they think may not be measurable enough to lend itself to some scientific investigation. Second, it is not testable. Finally, there may be some type of a translation mechanism too hard for us to understand, with distortions at the level of the process that are actually necessary for think to work.

 

Actually, by a mechanism (more technically called the bias-variance tradeoff), you often get better results making some type of “errors”, as when you aim slightly away from the target when shooting. I have shown in Antifragile that making some types of errors is the most rational thing to do, as, when the errors are of little costs, it leads to gains and discoveries.

 

This is why I have been against the State dictating to us what we “should” be doing: only evolution knows if the “wrong” thing is really wrong, provided there is skin in the game for that.

 

What is Religion About?

 

It is therefore my opinion that religion is here to enforce tail risk management across generations, as its binary and unconditional rules are easy to teach and enforce. We have survived in spite of tail risks; our survival cannot be that random.

 

Recall that skin in the game means that you do not pay attention to what people say, only to what they do, and how much of their neck they are putting on the line. Let survival work its wonders.

 

Superstitions can be vectors for risk management rules. We have as potent information that people that have them have survived; to repeat never discount anything that allows you to survive. For instance Jared Diamond discusses the “constructive paranoia” of residents of Papua New Guinea, whose superstitions prevent them from sleeping under dead trees. [1] Whether it is superstition or something else, some deep scientific understanding of probability that is stopping you, it doesn’t matter, so long as you don’t sleep under dead trees. And if you dream of making people use probability in order to make decisions, I have some news: close to ninety percent of psychologists dealing with decision-making (which includes such regulators as Cass Sunstein) have no clue about probability, and try to disrupt our organic paranoid mechanism.

 

Further, I find it incoherent to criticize someone’s superstitions if these are meant to bring some benefits, yet not do so with the optical illusions in Greek temples.

The notion of “rational” bandied about by all manner of promoters of scientism isn’t defined well enough to be used for beliefs. To repeat, we do not have enough grounds to discuss “irrational beliefs”. We do with irrational actions.

 

Now what people say may have a purpose –it is not just what they think it means. Let us extend the idea outside of buying and selling to the risk domain: opinions in are cheap unless people take risks for them.

 

Extending such logic, we can show that much of what we call “belief” is some kind of background furniture for the human mind, more metaphorical than real. It may work as therapy.

 

“Tawk” and Cheap “Tawk”

 

The first principle we make:

 

There is a difference between beliefs that are decorative and a different sort of beliefs, those that map to action.

 

There is no difference between them in words, except that the true difference reveals itself in risk taking, having something at stake, something one could lose in case one is wrong.

 

And the lesson, by rephrasing the principle:

 

How much you truly “believe” in something can only be manifested through what you are willing to risk for it.

 

But this merits continuation. The fact that there is this decorative component to belief, life, these strange rules followed outside the Gemelli clinics of the world merits a discussion. What are these for? Can we truly understand their function? Are we confused about their function? Do we mistake their rationality? Can we use them instead to define rationality?

 

What Does Lindy Say?

 

Let us see what Lindy has to say about “rationality”. While the notions of “reason” and “reasonable” were present in ancient thought, mostly embedded in the notion of precaution, or sophrosyne, this modern idea of “rationality” and “rational decision-making” was born in the aftermath of Max Weber, with the works of psychologists, philosophasters, and psychosophasters. The classical sophrosyne is precaution, self-control, and temperance, all in one. It was replaced with something a bit different. “Rationality” was forged in a post-enlightenment period[2], at the time when we thought that understanding the world was at the next corner. It assumes no randomness, or a simplified the random structure of our world. Also of course no interactions with the world.

 

The only definition of rationality that I found that is practically, empirically, and mathematically rigorous is that of survival –and indeed, unlike the modern theories by psychosophasters, it maps to the classics. Anything that hinders one’s survival at an individual, collective, tribal, or general level is deemed irrational.

 

Hence the precautionary principle and sound risk understanding.

 

It may be “irrational” for people to have two sinks in their kitchen, one for meat and the other for dairy, but as we saw, it led to the survival of the Jewish community as Kashrut laws forced them to eat and bind together.

 

It is also rational to see things differently from the “way they are”, for improved performance.

 

It is also difficult to map beliefs to reality. A decorative or instrumental belief, say believing in Santa Claus or the potential anger of Baal can be rational if it leads to an increased survival.

 

The Nondecorative in the Decorative

 

Now what we called decorative is not necessarily superfluous, often to the contrary. They may just have another function we do not know much about –and we can consult for that the grandmaster statistician, time, in a very technical tool called the survival function, known by both old people and very complex statistics –but we will resort here to the old people version.

 

The fact to consider is not that these beliefs have survived a long time –the Catholic church is an administration that is close to twenty-four centuries old (it is largely the continuation of the Roman Republic). The fact is not that . It is that people who have religion –a certain religion — have survived.

 

Another principle:

 

When you consider beliefs do not assess them in how they compete with other beliefs, but consider the survival of the populations that have them.

 

Consider a competitor to the Pope’s religion, Judaism. Jews have close to five hundred different dietary interdicts. They may seem irrational to an observer who sees purpose in things and defines rationality in terms of what he can explain. Actually they will most certainly seem so. The Jewish Kashrut prescribes keeping four sets of dishes, two sinks, the avoidance of mixing meat with dairy products or merely letting the two be in contact with each other, in addition to interdicts on some animals: shrimp, pork, etc. The good stuff.

 

These laws might have had an ex ante purpose. One can blame insalubrious behavior of pigs, exacerbated by the heat in the Levant (though heat in the Levant was not markedly different from that in pig-eating areas further West). Or perhaps an ecological reason: kids compete with humans in eating the same vegetables while cows eat what we don’t eat.

 

But it remains that whatever the purpose, the Kashrut survived approximately three millennia not because of its “rationality” but because the populations that followed it survived. It most certainly brought cohesion: people who eat together hang together. Simply it aided those that survived because it is a convex heuristic. Such group cohesion might be also responsible for trust in commercial transactions with remote members of the community.

 

This allows us to summarize

 

Rationality is not what has conscious verbalistic explanatory factors; it is only what aids survival, avoids ruin.

 

Rationality is risk management, period.

[hazard]

http://glineq.blogspot.rs/2018/01/the-importance-of-talebs-system-from.html

 

Quote

The importance of Taleb’s system: from the Fourth Quadrant to the Skin in the Game

by Branko Milanović

 

Several weeks ago on Twitter I wrote (in an obviously very short form) why I thought that Taleb was  one of  the most important thinkers today. Let me explain in greater detail. Taleb went from (a) technical observations about non-Gaussian distributions of some phenomena to (b) generalization of what this means for our perception of reality and the way we comprehend things (epistemology) to (c) methodology of knowledge and the role of inductive thinking to finally (d) a statement on ethics. To convey this he created a new type of writing. I will leave this last  part undiscussed, but whoever has read Taleb knows that his writing style is absolutely original and like Borges’ can be imitated but never fully mastered.

 

Let me now explain each of the four points. My original acquaintance with Taleb’s writings (and this may be true for many other people) came from his Black Swan and the sudden celebrity status of somebody who has seen the Great Recession coming. But while this may or may not be true, I think that it is of quite secondary, or altogether minor, importance. What Taleb has done with his Fooled by Randomness and Black Swan is to have directed our attention to a class of phenomena that exhibit very skewed distributions to the right and fat tails. It is important to point out that there are two facts here: high-end values and their relatively great frequency (as compared to Gaussian distributions). 

 

Following researchers like Benoit Mandelbrot (who worked a lot on Paretian distributions) Taleb argued that the number of phenomena with such asymmetric distributions is much greater than was commonly thought and that lots of our thinking errs by tacitly assuming normal distributors. Like Moliere’s Mr. Jourdain we have become Gaussian without thinking or knowing that we are.  This can have nefarious consequences. Take an example that Taleb mentions. The distribution of personal weight is Gaussian; thus when we build elevators that carry people we can at most assume that there may be, at any given time, (say) eight persons weighting 250 pounds each in the elevator. Let us add another 1000 pounds for safety and we can be pretty confident that an elevator that can handle 3000 pounds will be safe. But then suppose we are constructing a flood dyke. Flood levels are not normally distributed. Moreover even the last highest flood value does not guarantee that the following flood cannot be worse. Building safeguard for floods is much harder: we can imagine that the worst future flood may be five times worse than any that we know, but it could turn out to be ten times worse: “the odds of rare events are simply not computable” (Antifragile, p. 7). The number of such phenomena like flood is huge: income and wealth distributions, size of cities (with all that it implies for urban planning), number of victims in wars etc. 

 

These are the phenomena where the averages carry very little informational content, and even variances do not necessarily mean much (variance is often undefined in Pareto distributions). “Variance…is epistemologically, a measure of lack of knowledge about the average; hence the variance of variance is, epistemologically, a measure of lack of knowledge about the lack of knowledge of the mean” (Black Swan, p. 353). We are dealing here with what Taleb calls the “fourth quadrant”, the unknown unknowns. 

From that series of observations that represent the core of Black Swan, Taleb moves to the question of how we comprehend things and learn about them. An empirically-based observational approach leads him to prefer inductive, “tinkering” approach to deductive one. Moreover, the tinkering approach was linked in Antifragile to not only robustness (that is, not being negatively affected by volatility) but to a newly defined characteristic of “anti-fragility”, that is of being positively affected (thriving) in conditions of volatility. His view is that only systems that have been created by a long process of tinkering (i.e., evolution) have sufficient resilience to withstand Black Swan events. 

 

This has also led him to conservative political philosophy, similar to Edmund Burke’s (whom he does not mention): institutions should not be changed based on deductive reasoning; they should be left as they are not because they are rational and efficient in an ideal sense but because the very fact that they have survived a long time shows that they are resilient. Taleb’s approach there has a lot in common not only with Burke but also with Tocqueville, Chateaubriand and Popper (whom he quotes quite a lot). One may notice how a technical/statistical point made by Taleb such as “my field is error avoidance” leads to agreeing with Hayek’s critique of the “conceit of reason”. (I do not agree with this approach but my point here is to explain how I see the logic of Taleb’s system developing).

 

And to round off his system, Taleb moves to ethics (Skin in the Game), a topic introduced already at the end of Antifragile. Here Taleb’s view is that to be credible one must show by his behavior that he believes in what he preaches. To put it in Rawlsian terms one must affirm in daily life the principles in which he claims to believe. This is also a controversial topic: should we reject Rousseau’s view on how to raise children because he abandoned his own? Should we believe in that (unnamed) economist’s findings that happiness does not increase after $50,000 despite the fact that he avidly pursues high-paying gigs? One might wish to separate scientist’s views from his private behavior, but there is no doubt that an alternative (Taleb’s) view can be also defended and that we tend to find the correspondence of one’s life with professed beliefs to be a strong reinforcement of correctness of such beliefs.

 

Taleb has succeeded, as I mentioned in the beginning, in creating a full system that goes from empirics to ethics, a thing which is exceedingly rare in modern world. Whether because we are tired of grand systems or because our knowledge has been parceled due to the way knowledge is created and disseminated in modern academia, but very few people are able to create systems of thought that go across multiple disciplines and display internal coherence. This the uniqueness and importance of Nassim Taleb.

 

[namenski]

 

 

[namenski]

 

Ima ih jos zivih, ali je Korvettenkapitän Reinhard Hardegen bio poslednji od asova sa 21 potopljenim saveznickim koje teretnim, a bogami i ratnim brodom, osteceni se ne racunaju.

Onomad, 9. juna, sa svojih 105 godina, preselio se u Valhalu i pridruzio grupi kamarada sa retkim izuzecima mladjim od 30 godina, ljudima koji ce ostati zapamceni po neverovatnim uspesima u jednom izuzetno teskom poslu, ali zapamceni i po hrabrosti - koja nije monopol samo dobrih momaka - hrabrosti i drskosti koja se po nekad granicila sa bezobrazlukom.

Po Cercilu, podsecali su pre na studente, nego na komandante podmornica, ali - opaki kakvi su vec bili - bili su i nesto najblize sto je Nemacku moglo da dovede na domak ako ne pobede, a ono barem neresenog rezultata u delu koji se odnosio na mora i okeane.

 

Korvettenkapitän Reinhard Hardegen, jedan od retkih prezivelih - listom i do poslednjeg dobrovoljaca kojih je od nekih cirka 39,000 rat prezivelo njih oko 3,000 - u posleratnim pricama i prigodnim slikanjima sa zapovednicima potopljenih saveznickih brodova naravno nikada nije bio nacista.

 

Laze, bio je i verovatno u Hitlerovoj ratnoj masini nije bilo nacistickijeg dela od podmornica: mladost Nemacke je tu nasla svoju sansu protiv plavokrvnih pomorskih oficira od karijere: obaska sto je karijeru podmornicara poceo posle karijere mornarickog pilota, nesrece koja ga je poprilicno kostala zdravlja i pokretljivosti.

Stigao je i da, na kraju rata, komanduje i pesadijskim bataljonom u beznadeznim pokusajima da se zaustave Sovjeti, ali je bio dovoljno pametan da se pobrine da ga zarobe Britanci koji su ga u logoru za ratne zarobljenike drzali par godina.

 

  

Kao cikica, bio je prijatan sagovornik, sa sve zavidnom karijerom u 1 naftnoj kompaniji i mestom odbornika u gradskoj skupstini rodnog mu grada Bremena.

 

Ostace zapamcen i kao 1 od Nemaca koji su, za potrebe propagande i na fotografiji prisutnog ratnog dopisnika natenane razgledali nocna svetla Menhetna, Koni Ajlenda i to sve sa mosta izronjene podmornice.

Usput je nastradao i jedan britanski tanker.

 

Ostace zapamcen i po tome sto je procitao americki pokusaj da ponove uspeh sa takozvanim Q brodovima, mamcima za podmornice iz WW1: USS Atik, AK-101, uredno torpedovan jos urednije nije potonuo buduci napunjen drvetom bas za tu svrhu, poceo je, bas kako je zamisljeno, da iz sve snage puca po podmornici koja je brze-bolje utekla da bi se kasnije prisunjala i zavrsila posao toliko dobro da ni jedan od 141 clana posade nije preziveo..

 

 

 

 

[namenski]

1 pismo i 1 менаџмент^тм:

Pismo narkoma (narodnog komesara = ministra) unutrasnjih poslova SSSR (Народный комиссариат внутренних дел СССР, НКВД, Наркомвнудел) L. P. Berije, sekretaru ЦК ВКП(б) J. V. Staljinu, a u vezi amnestije konstruktora, inzenjera i tehnicara, a u vezi sa uspesnim zavrsetkom radova na konstrukciji aviona/projekta '100'.

24. jul 1940.

Quote

 

В связи с постройкой и внедрением в серийное производство на заводах Наркомата авиационной промышленности самолета “100”, сконструированного силами заключенных — специалистов Особого технического бюро, НКВД СССР проводятся следующие мероприятия.

1. Возбуждено ходатайство перед Президиумом Верховного совета СССР об амнистировании и снятии судимости с 25 чел. конструкторов и инженерно-технических работников Особого технического бюро НКВД СССР, осужденных Военной коллегией Верховного суда СССР на разные сроки, по прилагаемому списку.

2. После вынесения Президиумом Верховного совета соответствующего решения упомянутые выше специалисты будут зачислены на штатную работу в Особое техническое бюро.

3. Всем освобождаемым будут возвращены ранее занимаемые ими квартиры и выдано единовременное пособие в размере от 3 до 5 тыс. руб. каждому.

Представляю список конструкторов и инженерно-технических работников Особого технического бюро НКВД СССР, в отношении которых возбуждено ходатайство о помиловании.

Народный комиссар внутренних дел Союза ССР Л. Берия

 

 

 

Prilog:

Quote

 

Список заключенных конструкторов и инженерно-технических работников Особого технического бюро НКВД СССР, представляемых в Президиум Верховного совета СССР для амнистирования и снятия судимости

1. Петляков Владимир Михайлович, 1891 г. р. быв. главный конструктор завода № 156 НКАП. Осужден ВК Верховного суда СССР на 10 лет ИТЛ. Крупный специалист в области самолетостроения, имеет большой опыт практической работы. Сконструировал новый тип самолета для ВВС КА.

 

2. Изаксон Александр Михайлович, 1899 г. р., быв. начальник конструкторского бюро завода № 156 НКАП. Осужден ВК Верховного суда СССР на 10 лет ИТЛ. Высококвалифицированный специалист в области аэродинамики. Принимал деятельное участие в создании нового типа самолета.

 

3. Путилов Александр Иванович,  1893 г. р., быв. главный инженер завода № 207. Осужден ВК Верховного суда СССР на 10 лет ИТЛ. Способный конструктор в области проектирования фюзеляжа самолетов. Самостоятельно сконструировал фюзеляж самолета нового типа.

 

4. Мясищев Владимир Михайлович, 1902 г. р., быв. начальник конструкторского бюро № 6 ЦАГИ. Осужден ВК Верховного суда СССР на 10 лет ИТЛ. Крупный специалист, обладающий обширными знаниями в области самолетостроения в СССР и за границей. Провел большую работу по постройке нового самолета.

 

5. Базенков Николай Ильич, 1901 г. р., быв. начальник конструкторско-чертежного отдела завода № 22 НКАП. Осужден ВК Верховного суда СССР на 5 лет ИТЛ. Начальник бригады центроплана, руководил разработкой конструкции центроплана. Обладает большим опытом серийного производства.

 

6. Минкнер Курт Владимирович, 1903 г. р., быв. инженер 3‑й лаборатории ЦИАМ. Осужден ВК Верховного суда СССР на 10 лет ИТЛ. Замначальника бригады моторного оборудования. Высококвалифицированный специалист по турбокомпрессорам.

 

7. Погосский Евгений Иванович, 1893 г. р., быв. начальник отдела моторооборудования ЦАГИ. Осужден ВК Верховного суда СССР на 10 лет ИТЛ. Начальник бригады моторооборудования. Опытный, высококвалифицированный специалист по моторным установкам.

 

8. Башта Трифон Максимович, 1904 г. р., быв. начальник лаборатории ЭНИИМС. Осужден ВК Верховного суда СССР на 10 лет ИТЛ. Руководитель бригады гидроприводов. Спроектировал и построил гидроприводы для управления шасси и питания бензина самолетов.

 

9. Качкачян Михаил Минаевич, 1893 г. р., быв. начальник летной станции завода№ 213. Осужден  ВК Верховного суда СССР на 10 лет ИТЛ. Руководитель бригады приборов. Разработал конструкцию автомата к прицелу для авиационного оружия.

 

10. Енгибарян Амик Австович, 1899 г. р., быв. начальник отдела самолетного оборудования ЦАГИ. Осужден ВК Верховного суда СССР на 10 лет ИТЛ. Начальник бригады электрооборудования.  Разработал ряд электромеханизмов, внедряемых по рекомендации НИИ ВВС КА в промышленность.

 

11. Рогов Константин Васильевич,  1902 г. р., быв. инженер ЦАГИ. Осужден ВК Верховного суда СССР на 10 лет ИТЛ. Руководитель бригады электрорадиооборудования самолетов. Разработал ряд электромеханизмов.

 

12. Вахмистров Борис Сергеевич, 1890 г. р., быв. начальник бригады вооружения ЦАГИ. Осужден ВК Верховного суда СССР на 5 лет ИТЛ. Начальник бригады вооружения, высококвалифицированный специалист с большим стажем практической работы. Разработал новый вид бомбардировочного вооружения для истребителей.

 

13. Матвеев Георгий Григорьевич, 1903 г. р., быв. инженер завода № 22 НКАП. Осужден ВК Верховного суда СССР на 10 лет ИТЛ. Зам. начальника бригады центроплана, способный инженер, обладающий большим опытом практической работы. Добросовестно выполнял работы по проектированию центроплана самолета.

 

14. Бару Ефим Иосифович, 1904 г. р., быв. инженер завода № 135 НКАП. Осужден ВК Верховного суда СССР на 5 лет ИТЛ. Зам. руководителя бригады крыла. Способный, опытный инженер. Принимал деятельное участие в проектировании крыла самолета.

 

15. Бутан Ян Юрьевич, 1896 г. р., быв. старший инженер завода № 1 НКАП. Осужден ВК Верховного суда СССР на 10 лет ИТЛ. Высококвалифицированный конструктор по моторному оборудованию. Разработал конструкцию бензосистемы самолета.

 

16. Некрасов Николай Северинович, 1891 г. р., быв. начальник конструкторского бюро завода № 156 НКАП. Осужден ВК Верховного суда СССР на 10 лет ИТЛ. Руководитель бригады оперения. Разработанная им конструкция хвостового оперения самолета отличается большой надежностью. Опытный, квалифицированный специалист.

 

17. Кондорский Борис Михайлович, 1888 г. р., быв. начальник бюро эскизного проектирования завода № 156 НКАП. Осужден ВК Верховного суда СССР на 10 лет ИТЛ. Руководитель группы общих видов. Провел ответственную работу по эскизному проектированию самолетов. Работает добросовестно.

 

18. Петров Николай Иванович, 1894 г. р., быв. начальник отдела технического контроля завода № 156 НКАП. Осужден ВК Верховного суда СССР на 10 лет ИТЛ. Зам. руководителя бригады герметики. Опытный, высококвалифицированный инженер.

 

19. Сигорский Алексей Александрович, 1907 г. р., быв. конструктор завода№ 22 НКАП. Осужден ВК Верховного суда СССР на 10 лет ИТЛ. Инженер по стрелковому вооружению. Разработал конструкцию установки стрелкового вооружения, вполне оправдавшую себя в эксплуатации.

 

20. Жолковский Соломон Яковлевич, 1902 г. р., быв. главный конструктор завода № 135. Осужден ВК Верховного суда СССР на 10 лет ИТЛ. Инженер-расчетчик. Провел большую работу на прочность самолетов. Дисциплинированный, исполнительный работник.

 

21. Стоман Евгений Карлович, 1895 г. р., быв. зам. начальника летной станции ЦАГИ. Осужден ВК Верховного суда СССР на 10 лет ИТЛ. Руководитель бригады управления, разработавшей конструкцию управления самолетом.  Провел большую работу в качестве ведущего инженера по летным испытаниям самолетов.

 

22. Лещенко Сергей Михайлович, 1904 г. р., быв. директор завода № 25. Осужден ВК Верховного суда СССР на 10 лет ИТЛ. Руководитель технологической бригады. Принимал непосредственное участие в постройке самолета на заводе. Опытный специалист по горячей штамповке и литью металлов.

 

23. Полонский Николай Иванович, 1893 г. р., быв. начальник отдела завода № 18 НКАП. Осужден ВК Верховного суда СССР на 5 лет ИТЛ. Опытный специалист-технолог. Принимал участие в постройке самолета на заводе.

 

24. Лопатин Иван Михайлович, 1902 г. р., быв. начальник цеха завода № 21 НКАП. Осужден ВК Верховного суда СССР на 10 лет ИТЛ. Инженер-технолог, Разработал технологию деталей для самолетов. Инициативный работник.

 

25. Абрамов Виктор Иванович, 1897 г. р., быв. главный инженер-технолог завода № 21. Осужден ВК Верховного суда СССР на 10 лет ИТЛ. Опытный производственник с большим стажем практической работы. Разработал ряд конструкций механических деталей самолетов.

 

Народный комиссар внутренних дел Союза ССР Л. Берия

 

Boldovao sam samo 2 najpoznatija imena sa spiska: dobar deo ostalih je itekako poznat u sovjetskoj konstruktorskoj zajednici/establismentu sa sve vise nego znacajnim doprinosom mnostvu posleratnih sovjetskih vazduhoplovno tehnickih i svemirskih dostignuca.

Svi zajedno, po spisku, cine 'ladno milione dolara vrednu ekipu dovoljnu za kompletiranje bilo kog vrhunskog projektantskog biroa bilo koje vrhunske korporacije iz branse.

 

Kao sto se vidi iz bolda u pismu, ekipa je avion razvila dok su radili kao osudjenici u jednoj od onih cuvenih шарашки, konstruktorskih biroa raznih usmerenja u nadleznosti NKVD. 

[Radoye]

Vahmistrov je pored ove dvojice boldovanih isto bio zesca faca, njegov koncept je ovo:

 

[namenski]

Није то тај Вахмистров, на списку је старији брат Владимира Сергејевича Вахмистрова, инжењеру специјализованом за авионско наоружање.

Звено Вахмистрова, ово што си показао горе, дело је поменутог Владимира Вахмистрова који додуше није био хапшен, али је после братовљевог хапшења ипак - за сваки случај ваљда - био ражалован^тм и од Главног конструктора постао само руководилац конструкторске бригаде у КБ-29.

Иначе, интересантно је да је Звено примењено у првих неколико дана рата, крајем јула тачније: бомбардовани су, са Крима, одакле би другде, Констанца и Плоешти, а у августу черноводски мост на Дунаву и то у 2 наврата.

Без губитака и ако се радило о концепту који није био уведен у наоружање: донекле доказ очаја Совјета тих првих дан рата, а донекле и доказ трзаја једне ваздухопловне доктрине и ваздухопловне индустрије која је почетком 30-их постала светски врх и изграђена практично ни из чега, без помена вредне инфраструктуре и која је стицајем несрећних околности била обогаљена како репресијом, тако и погрешним закључцима изведеним из понајпре шпанских искустава и несхватањем немачких током почетних периода рата у Европи.

Али ни репресија, ни доктринарне грешке не могу да се, као проблем, носе са чињеницом да млада и неразвијена индустрија једноставно није могла да прати конструкторски авангардизам: милиони фабричких радника, до јуче неписмених и у катаклизмичним друштвеним променама које су трајале једва пар деценија, једноставно нису могли да постану квалификована и на традицији израсла радна снага попут оне у Британији, Немачкој или Америци.

Совјетски конструктори су тек имали, морали да науче да праве и то у огромним количинама једноставне и поуздане машине које ће моћи да се производе у непојамно тешким ратним условима, по некад буквално на ледини, а које ће да производе по некад само жене и деца, а користе такође на брзину обучавани дојучерашњи сељаци.

И, са све плејадом бриљантних менаџера, организатора производње, већином млађих од 1 Шпера, успеју у томе и произведу неке од најуспешнијих ратних направа Другог светског рата.

Цена је, наравно, била страшна: Шахурин, министар авио индустрије током целог рата и то са непуних 40 година, у својим сећањима описује сусрет са људством једне ловачке јединице под Стаљинградом у зиму 1942 - велика већина пилота тек приспелих на фронт имала је свега 3 до 4 сата лета на типу авиона са којим је требало да колико сутрадан лети у борбу...

 

 

[namenski]

18 hours ago, namenski said:

6. Минкнер Курт Владимирович, 1903 г. р., быв. инженер 3‑й лаборатории ЦИАМ. Осужден ВК Верховного суда СССР на 10 лет ИТЛ. Замначальника бригады моторного оборудования. Высококвалифицированный специалист по турбокомпрессорам.

@Radoye Random, a glede spiska: a tek lik, ovde oznacen kao specijalista za turbokompresore.

 

 

Inace Nemac, covek koji je bio ucenik i desna ruka coveka koji je bio:

Quote

...sumorni tehnicki genije po imenu Борис Сергеевич Стечкин.Inzenjerski aristokrat, rodjen 1891. godine, od oca novinara i majke babice, pitomac orlovskog kadetskog korpusa, omiljeni ucenik Zukovskog, oca ruskog/sovjetskog vazduhoplovstva.

 

Termodinamicar i matematicki genije, zaludjen za avionske motore, saradjivao je sa Sikorskim u njegovoj ruskoj fazi, ostao posle revolucije u Rusiji, profesor univerziteta, jedan od prvih Sovjeta citiranih u inostranstvu, dobio svoje jos u prvim dovodjenjima u red tehnicke inteligencije: 3 godine.

...

Steckin je oslobadjan, pa ponovo osudjivan, bio sprovodjen od biroa do biroa, svuda gde je trebalo resiti neki hitan problem vezan za avionske motore i reaktivni pogon, da bi ga konacno Mikulin oslobodio 1943. i to urgirajuci kod Staljina licno: danas nema spora da su sovjetski uspesi u razvoju narocito mlaznih avionskih motora krajem pedesetih i pocetkom sezdesetih, kada je – na primer – leteo i prvi putnicki avion pokretan turboventilatorskim motorom, zasluga pre svega ovog coveka.Cak je i notorno surevnjiva zajednica vazduhoplovnih delatnika kao normalno i bez galame primila vest da je prva Lenjinova nagrada za rad u oblasti vazduhoplovstva – za putnicki avion Tu-104 – dodeljena ovom coveku, zasluge u razvoju gasnih turbina za sve namene, od energetskih do pomorskih da se ne pominju.Bas kao sto je njegova zasluga i teorijska razrada motora koji je pokretao prvu svetsku krstarecu raketu koja je – bar kad je motor u pitanju – bacila u zasenak savremena francuska petljanja sa istim motorom primenjenim na avionima Leduc i nastalim trudom jednog drugog zaludjenika po imenu Rene Leduc.

 

Da bi 1945. postao zamenik A. N. Tupoljeva po pitanju pogona, prosao je celom duzinom mukotrpni sovjetski put osvajanja projektovanja i proizvodnje avionskih motora, od motora AM-34 modifikovanog za predratnog rekordera ANT-25 do motora za pomenuti avion '100', savladjivanja motora za sovjetsku kopiju B-29, onaj Tu-4, pa sve do motora AM-3 (RD-3) za avion Tu-16, NK12 za Tu 95 i Tu-114, D-20P i D-30 za Tu-124 inace prvi avion sveta sa turboventilatorskim motorima, i konacno za nadzvucne VD-7M za Tu-16 i Al-7B za Tu-98...

 

[namenski]

On 26.6.2018. at 23:55, namenski said:

... a u vezi sa uspesnim zavrsetkom radova na konstrukciji aviona/projekta '100'.

 

 

 

Avion koji se pominje u Berijinom pismu ocu najboljem prijatelju aviokonstruktora i ostalih radnika u vazduhoplovnoj industriji i koji je onim nesrecnicima sa spiska doneo slobodu je inace cuveni Pe-2, Петляков Пе-2, poznat i kao Пешка, proizveden tokom rata u preko 10,000 primeraka i zapamcen kao veoma uspela konstrukcija.

Bio je i u naoruzanju JA kao deo sovjetske posleratne pomoci i za njega ce ostati vezana 1 prica: buduci - kako se prica - pomalo nestasan prilikom sletanja, a da bi se piloti koji su imali da ga prime i dalje koriste malo umirili povodom toga, ove avione su iz CCCP dovozile iskljucivo zenske posade.

Ali je zanimljiv je i kao deo price o sovjetskim dvomotornim avionima, prvobitno zamisljenim da budu pratnja dalekoletecim bombarderima: nastao je upravo iz jednog takvog projekta, socijalistickog takmicenja tacnije, u kome su ucestvovala 4 biroa, a od kojih - manje zbog aviona, a vise zbog coveka konstruktora - vredi izdvojiti:

ДИС-135, ovo ДИС od Дальний Истребитель Сопровождения
Грушин Гр-1
Grusin Gr-1

 

Radilo se o u svakom pogledu avionu za respekt: rad na projektu je zavrsen za stahanovskih 9 meseci, i avion je – posle statickih ispitivanja koja su trajala samo nekoliko dana – iz Harkova poslat u Moskvu da ga se ispita u CAGI aerotunelu, negde u rano prolece 1941. godine.
Tu se negde prica i zavrsava: vracen u Harkov, avion je unisten u nemackom bombardovanju, fabrika i dokumentacija takodje, pa se od svega odustalo.
Po svemu sudeci, a poznato je veoma malo, radilo se o avionu zavidnih karakteristika: na nesto preko 7,000 metara visine ocekivala se najveca brzina od oko 650 km/h, nadalo se plafonu od skoro 12,000 metara i doletu od skoro 2,000 kilometara koji je trebalo da omoguce rezervoari ukupne zapremine do 2,550 litara.
Cudno je da su Gr-1 uporedjivali sa Ta-3 konstruktora Tairova – trecim delom price o sovjetskim dvomotorcima – pri tom mislim na do sada poznate izvore: verovatno se radi o poredjenjima do kojih se doslo tokom skoro istovremenog rada na ova dva aviona, a pri tom ne treba zaboraviti da je Tairov poleteo.
Ima i abera da je nesto ovog aviona ili njegovih ostataka po padu Harkova dospelo Nemcima u ruke.

 

 

Slicnost sa Me-110 je bila samo prividna: avionska moda tih godina je bila samo moda, a razumljivo je da su svi na svetu gledali u avion koji je vec ratovao. Pri tom se ne sme zanemariti cinjenica da je Me-110 bio majstorski medijski eksploatisan. Ne sme se, doduse, zanemariti i cinjenica da su nogu u dizajnu aviona konfiguracije M-110 povukli ipak Francuzi, jos ranih tridesetih.
A u dubinama arhiva bivseg CCCP ostace danas vec zaboravljene optuzbe po kojima su neki od najtalentovanijih sovjetskih konstruktora, stariji Tupoljev na primer, dopali zatvora pod optuzbom da su Nemcima prodali, ni manje ni vise, nego planove na osnovu kojih je nastao Me-110.
Ostaje da se o poligonu u Lipecku i danas malo prica, a jos manje zna: kraj dvadesetih i pocetak tridesetih i saradnja na pravljenju aviona dvaju svetskih parija – crvenog Sovjetskog Saveza i porazene i revansa zeljne Nemacke, koja jos uvek nije bila i Hitlerova Nemacka.
Letelo se zajedno, konstruisalo i ispitivalo, ucilo i naucilo.
Kako ko i koliko.
Sovjeti o tome nisu rado govorili zbog razumljive optuzbe za saradnju sa Nemcima koja bi im sledovala, Nemci opet, zbog toga da ne bi morali da priznaju da deo uspeha koje su – nesporno – postigli u razvoju vazduhoplovstva duguju i saradnji sa jednom mladom industrijom koju je dobar deo sveta bio sklon da podcenjuje, a od koje se ipak imalo sta nauciti.
Jedan od poznatih podataka o ovom avionu je i neka vrsta studije koja je konstruktora opredelila da se – za razliku od Me-110 – opredeli za jednoseda. Razmatran je i drugi clan posade, radista i repni strelac, ali se sabirajuci i oduzimajuci tezine potrebne za ugradnju drugog clana posade koji bi bio iole zasticen, doslo do racunice da ga je ipak bolje izbeci.
Sto se tice naoruzanja, avion jeste bio za svoje vreme zaista tesko naoruzan: trebalo je da u nosu ima dva 23 mm topa i dva 12.7 mm mitraljeza, sa jos po 2 mitraljeza 7.62 mm u krilima. Ima izvora koji pominju i mogucnost ugradnje topa 37 mm u konzoli ispod trupa, dok je uobicajeni kompromis sa nosenjem bombi i mogucnostima aviona da bombarduje iz niskog leta i iz obrusavanja ovaj avion kostala mogucnosti nosenja do 8 bombi tezine po 100 kg.
Motori je trebalo da budu sirom sovjetske vazduhoplovne industrije ocekivani Mikulinovi PD-37, snage po 1,250 KS i ciji su se hladnjaci, smesteni u korenu krila izvlacili.

 

A sam konstruktor, Pjotr Dimitrijevic Grusin ili Пётр Дмитриевич Грушин, rodjen 1906. godine, sto znaci da je za vreme rada na ovom avionu imao 34 godine, rodjen je kao dete stolara negde u Saratovskoj guberniji. Motao se po raznim skolama, i nije bio bas neki djak, doduse i vremena su bila takva, zainteresovao se – ma sta to znacilo tih godina u CCCP – za avijaciju, poceo sa modelima, dokopao se konacno vojne pilotske skole u Samari koju je morao da napusti zbog nezadovoljavanja zdravstvenih uslova.
Postao clan Partije 1931: jedan od onih koji su Revoluciji, Partiji i Drazavi – razlika se upravo tih godina svodila na nulu – dugovali sve, postao student Lenjingradskog politehnickog instituta, smer hidroavioni.
Smer je dzumle 1930. bio prebacen u Moskvu i prikljucen Moskovskom institutu avijacije (Московский авиационный институт, МАИ) gde mladi Grusin dolazi u dodir sa takvim imenima kao sto su Grigorovic, Iljusin, Jurjev i gde brzo izlazi na glas kao covek koji ume da misli svojom glavom.
1932. sa jos dvojicom kolega radi diplomski rad, projekt poznat kao Бригадный koji dospeva na takmicenje organizacije koja se zove Osoaviahim i koja se brine o tome da deca jucerasnjih muzika, pa i muzici sami postanu piloti, soferi i svasta nesto povezano sa tehnikom. Projekt osvaja prvo mesto i uredno je zaboravljen, a ne bi trebalo da bude: drugo mesto je osvojio jedan genije koji ce kasnije da postane poznat kao otac sovjetskog svemirskog programa i koji se zvao Sergej Koroljev.
Grusin 1932. zavrsava studije i dodeljuju ga takozvanom Birou novih konstrukcija (Бюро новых конструкций, БНК), Всесоюзного авиационного объединения, sta god to znacilo u ondasnjem CCCP cija se vazduhoplovna industrija tek pribira i profesionalizuje. 1933. vracaju ga u MAI na duznost zamenika Grigorovica. Uspeva i da prezivi jedno rusenje aviona na probnom letu, da bi ga zapao rad na modernizaciji cuvenog U-2 ili Po-2 aviona: zadatak je bio da se u kukuruzara pokusa da ugradi ni manje ni vise nego mala parna turbina.
Zatim ide rad na projektu poznatom kao Октябрёнок, jednom od pokusaja da se vidi kako lete naopaki avioni, oni cije su komandne povrsine napred, a krila pozadi: avion je poleteo, a Grusin stice svoje mesto u zajednici konstruktora koju upravo ocekuju teska vremena sa sve cistkama.
Kako se Grusin kroz to vreme provukao ne zna se, tek 1940. eto njega na mestu glavnog konstruktora Harkovske fabrike aviona oznacene kao Zavod broj 135: MAI je zatvoren, a Grusin na novom radnom mestu ima da se brine o uvodjenju u serijsku proizvodnju aviona BB-1 poznatijeg kao Su-2.
Tu negde ga zapada i rad na Gr-1, sluzbeno oznacavanom kao DIS-135, eto rata, evakuacija i sve ono sto je pratilo ocajnicke napore da se prave avioni, sto vise aviona, da bi se 1942. Grusin obreo u OKB Lavockin, tada smestenom u gradu koji se zvao Gorki, a pre i posle toga poznatom kao Niznji Novgorod, gde radi na lovcu La-5. Uspeh u pocetku serijske proizvodnje ovog aviona i njegovo pojavljivanje nad Staljingradom u jesen 1942. donose Grusinu Orden Lenjina i premestaj u Moskvu za glavnog inzenjera Zavoda broj 381.
1946. eto ga u Ministarstvu vazduhoplovne industrije, a odatle, u skladu sa prioritetima koje je doneo rat i sve ono sto se posle rata priprema i sto ce se tek desavati , odlazi u Specijalni komitet za reaktivnu tehniku (Специальный комитет по реактивной технике), radi kao prorektor za nauku u uskrslom MAI, a 1951. postaje prvi zamenik Semjona Lavockina kome je zadato da napravi prve rakete zemlja-vazduh. 26. aprila 1953. prva sovjetska raketa zemlja-vazduh, vodjena sa zemlje i lansirana sa poligona Kapustin Jar obara jedan Tu-4, prigodno preuredjen da posluzi kao meta.
Krajem 1953. postaje glavni konstruktor, a zatim i generalni konstruktor, nacelnik, OKB broj 2, danas se to zove ОАО Машиностроительное конструкторское бюро «Факел» имени академика П.Д.Грушина; i po zvanju i inace, postaje centar, glava sovjetskog napora da se razvije program raketa zemlja-vazduh.
Sovjetska sekretno prica: ukazom Prezidijuma Vrhovnog sovjeta, sa oznakom tajno, Grusin jula 1958. dobija zvanje Heroja socijalistickog rada sa sve medaljom Srp i cekic. Za razvoj i uspesno uvodjenje u naoruzanje rakete 1Д (В-750) koja je deo protivvazdusnog raketnog sistema oznacavanog kao ЗРК С-75 imenovan kao Десна, a jos poznatiji po NATO oznaci SA-2 Guideline: do sada neprevazidjena naprava te vrste, proizvedena u neverovatno velikom broju, koriscena u bezbroj hladnoratovskih malih vrucih ratova i od strane mnogo najrazlicitijih korisnika i koja ce – u svakom slucaju – ostati zapamcena kao prvi obarac jednog aviona u takozvanim realnim uslovima: zrtva je bio jedan tajvanski visokoletac, Martin RB-57D Canberra, negde iznad Pekinga, oktobra 1959. godine.

 

 

Na red ce doci i Amerikanci: na praznik rada 1960. godine ce ovim sistemom da bude srusen jedan U-2 sa pilotom koji se zvao Francis (Gary) Pauers koji se, sasvim slucajno, zadesio negde iznad Smolenska, da bi zatim dosla obaranja iznad Kube, pa Vijetnam u kome je po Amerikancima udesio 200, a po Sovjetima 2,000 americkih aviona…
Tu su i oni monstrumi koji stite Moskvu poznati kao sistem C-200, konstrukcije СК Оса, КК Шторм и Оса-М.

Ostace zabelezeno i prvo uspesno presretanje 1 ICBM: marta 1961. godine je na poligonu Sari Sagan u Kazahstanu, eksperimentalnom raketom B-1000 presretnut jedan R-12 ICBM, a sve u sklopu napora da se razvije efikasan sistem zastite od ICBM koji je dobio svoj zavrsetak u sistemu protivraketne odbrane A-35, krsten u NATO-u kao ABM-X-1 Galosh, rasporedjen oko Moskve i konsenzusom velikih, CCCP i USA proglasen za preskupu vrstu igracaka za obe strane i to u svakom pogledu.

 

1962. dopisni clan Akademije nauka CCCP, 1966. redovni.

 

1981, za razvoj i uvodjenje u naoruzanje rakete 5В55, dela raketnog sistema ЗРК С-300; onaj isti S-300 koji je u Srbiji tako zeljno ocekivan i prizivan kao lek za NATO bombardovanje, ovo samo sale radi, jer radi se zaista o ozbiljnom protivavionskom sistemu, teskom i danas, opet Orden Lenjina, opet Srp i cekic.
Opet pod oznakom tajno.

Slike prilika i naravi jednog vremena radi: u sastav novoosnovanog KB koji je izneo gotovo celokupan sovjetski napor u razvoju raketa za borbu protiv aviona govori i podatak da su u sastav novoosnovanove Grusinove firme usli i zaposleni u КБ-1 i ОКБ-293 jos jednog velikog imena sovjetskog vazduhoplovnog establismenta po imenu M. R. Bisnovat, ali i da se o Grusinu, negde od sredine 50-ih, pa sve do pada CCCP ne cuje ama bas nista: njegov rad bio je poznat je samo najuzem krugu politicke i vojne vrhuske.
A pravo mesto Pjotra Dimitrijevica Grusina u svetu konstruktora pokazuje i to da je drugi po redu dobitnik nagrade Zlatne medalje koja nosi ime A.N. Tupoljeva: ova cinjenica ukazuje na malo drugaciju hijerarhiju u svetu konstruktora i menadzera jedne mocne vazduhoplovne industrije, drugaciju od one popularne.
Docekao je postsovjetska vremena, sa sve clanstvom u Ruskoj akademiji nauka.
Deputat Vrhovnog Sovjeta RSFSR, deputat XXIII i XXIV kongresa KPSS.
Sa sve komada 7 Ordena Lenjina.
I pri tom bio i ostao jedan od velikih koji su pravili letece naprave.
Svetski.
I jedan od onih velikih inzenjera inzenjerskog doba, predkompjuterskog – ne mislim na hardver nego na nacin razmisljanja.

[namenski]

On 26.6.2018. at 23:55, namenski said:

5. Базенков Николай Ильич, 1901 г. р., быв. начальник конструкторско-чертежного отдела завода № 22 НКАП. Осужден ВК Верховного суда СССР на 5 лет ИТЛ. Начальник бригады центроплана, руководил разработкой конструкции центроплана. Обладает большим опытом серийного производства.

 

Jos jedan sa spiska, takodje sarza i to ne neka idimidodjimi:

zavrsio je karijeru kao - najbolje bi se dalo prevesti - izvrsni direktor u Tupoljevu i nesto sto se u slozenoj sovjetskoj organizacionoj i svakoj drugoj semi zvalo prvi zamenik: notiran kao glavni i odgovorni za konstrukciju Tu-95 i svih njegovih varijanti/modifikacija ukljucujuci i putnicku, Tu-114.

 

 

1919. stupio kao dobrovoljac u Crvenu armiju, posle demobilizacije 1923. godine skolovanje uz rad tehnickog crtaca, kompletirano 1932: postaje clan sovjetskog vazduhoplovnog establismenta ciju sudbinu deli sa sve clanstvom na kvotovanom Berijinom spisku.

U NKVD konstrukcionom birou zapamcen kao ljubitelj i znalac sviranja na violini - sto je ostao do kraja zivota - ali i kao robijas koji je svojerucno u zatvoru napravio violinu.

Ratna karijera sa sve radom na Tu-2 ali i organizacijom izgradnje fabrike aviona na sred srede nicega.

Dobitnik 2 Staljinove nagrade, 1 Lenjinove, kolekcije visokog ordenja i ostalih priznanja...

 

Борис Ильич Базенков, stariji brat, pilot, visoki oficir crvenog vazduhoplovstva, jedno vreme glavni za materijalno tehnicko snabdevanje BBC PKKA, nije se izvukao: streljan je 1938. godine.

 

Лев Николаевич Базенков, sin, rodjen 1927. umro 2010. ostace zabelezen kao drugi u poslu oko Tu-160.