[Nathanba]

Yes I was going to say something similar because articles like this make it seem like a mysterious problem. In reality the reason this happens is because people want profit and the most profitable thing to do is unfortunately to drag a problem out. This literally happens even with individuals, you can give someone a task and he will try to explain to his teamlead that he has to research this all day even though he already knows the answer and he might do another hour on it. In general we have a problem that solving things quickly and permanently is not profitable for the individual/company.

[carlmr]

>In general we have a problem that solving things quickly and permanently is not profitable for the individual/company.

This is also somewhat tied to the issue that if you work in a salaried job and do overtime when there's a lot to do, you don't get to do undertime when there's nothing to do.

The 9-5 job schedule is a holdover from industrialization where time at work is directly proportional to work output.

For knowledge workers to be the most efficient they need some downtime, if you're going to ask them to do way too much in crunch time. But we don't give it to them. Instead if there's nothing to do for a while there will be layoffs.

So instead everybody needs to appear busy and important.

[teaearlgraycold]

Thankfully there do exist situations closer to reality. When at an early stage startup it's either fast or die.

Although I also like to remind my co-workers that what you're doing is way more important than just going fast.

[jrumbut]

The institutional preservation instinct can cause perverse incentives but it is useful and allows large organizations to be trusted to do things that can't be addressed by startups.

If you have work that requires something to exist in more or less its present form for years or decades at a time it would be a disaster if one of your key vendors pivoted or went bankrupt halfway through.

[BrandonMarc]

> the most profitable thing to do is unfortunately to drag a problem out

... which is why our medical intitutions would rather manage chronic conditions than cure or prevent them

... and also why our "defense" institutions would rather manage chronic, unwinnable conflicts rather than see any side achieve victory (Ukraine, Syria, Gaza, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan) ... and also why our weapons / aid keep appearing on both sides of various conflicts

Because that's where the profit is.

[thr0way120]

It is also why nothing ever gets built (trains etc)

[shiroiushi]

>and also why our "defense" institutions would rather manage chronic, unwinnable conflicts rather than see any side achieve victory (Ukraine, Syria, Gaza, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan) ... and also why our weapons / aid keep appearing on both sides of various conflicts

Huh? Citation needed. I've never heard of American weapons/aid appearing on "both sides" of any of these conflicts. Generally, these kinds of conflicts come down to Western weapons being used against Russian and/or Iranian weapons. Ukraine is quite obviously a proxy war between the West and Russia.

The reason the Ukraine war isn't being fought to win is because of the spectre of nuclear weapons use by Russia. Broadening the conflict carries that real risk. In Gaza, it is being fought to win, by Israel, but the cost is that they're losing the information war, as many countries accuse them of genocide. Afghanistan was a clear win by US forces, but then turned into the US propping up the civilian government they tried to institute with 20 years of military assistance against the domestic insurgency, and that failed when the US finally pulled out and the government collapsed to the Taliban. (Basically, the US wasn't willing to resort to the brutality needed to completely eliminate the enemy and change the local culture, so the whole project was doomed.) Iraq was a success; Saddam's government was destroyed and a new civilian government instituted, though it was at a huge cost and under false pretenses, but that government still stands today and many Iraqis (everyone who was oppressed by Saddam) are happier with the current situation.

[throwaway345353]

By that standard nuclear blackmail is successful 100% of the time.