Some of our output product is typically hypothetical or otherwise highly complex, e.g. the different ‘schools of thought’ surrounding new physics, call them silos. We give them names, thus making the art of physics itself discrete and easier with which the public can engage. There are other examples of named, hence discrete, entities that make some of our bureaucracies more accessible and accountable.
The Navy creates a discrete advantage by naming their ships, and by showing them off to the public with tours while in port. Just as with silos, the public can adopt a ship they have toured, and follow its engagements around the globe. I wear my adopted ship’s hat in public, which has initiated conversations with total strangers, always a good thing; hoping to get my Physics LQG hat soon (my ship’s hat is blue, my academic affiliation red; another color please that I could wear on any side of town). Go Team.
Aside: My adopted ship was destroyed while in port in San Diego, resulting in 1.2B USD written off. So far as I can tell, a few brass got demoted and reprimanded, but no one was fired or jailed for culpability or other gross negligence. It’s a still very fresh black eye for the USN and deserved far more attention than it got. I still wear my cap as a memorial. Perhaps we need empowered, independent watchdogs to monitor each discrete multi-billion dollar investment we have made, to weed out misconduct/malfeasance before it can drain our bank account, and to severely punish those who neglected their oaths, at minimum by not funding their retirement .
On the positive side, citizen personal connections to such extremely complex technical systems can help the enlightened public to buy in and support continued development of the state of the art. The Army and Air Force might do well to become more discrete, perhaps at the mission level. This would encourage developing mission-dependent objectives and schedules, relegating to history’s dustbin those long drawn out, bureaucratically-politically motivated conflicts, accountable only by dubious body counts. A sports cap is the least costly way to get the word out and create a rah-rah support base, with many eyes on the ball. Another advantage: we can easily spot the MAGA deviants by their hats.
Similarly, NASA names its space missions. Unfortunately, in my opinion, NASA attempts to get the public’s support via a far-fetched anthropic sales pitch, putting a human in an early seat to the stars, exponentially increasing costs and slowing progress. That is science at its most embarrassing, playing political optics to increase funding at the expense of common sense. It should be fodder for a lively public debate, and more intelligent congressional oversight (oxymoron). The alternative is an increasingly negative national bank balance, with most beneficial programs continuing to get short shrift.
Another upside of making the art of science and war discrete: failure is harder to cover up. In these complex human endeavors, failure is always an option. While it can be an agent of constructive change, it is the most expensive way forward. (Academia and other classic bureaucracies, this applies to you too.) When more eyes are on a specific failure, it is more likely that real preventive change will be implemented, with any dereliction resulting in re-education and re-assignment, and malfeasance, such as data faking, bribery, sexual/other coercion, or egregious dereliction, corrected by termination, loss of pension, and lawful consequence. In an environment where one is more likely to be caught out for neglecting one’s duty and oath while pursuing personal gain, you can successfully wager that performance will improve. Politicians, this means you too.
Visibility is King/Queen, and the discrete is more visible.
areas of interest 