Great read. This raises the question of what is the cost of having lots of local optima that are far from a global optimum? What is a good level of granularity for such things? When does the cost...
Great read.
In all these cases, you could argue that the formula merely replaced a set of locally optimal modes of social organization with a globally optimal one. But that would be missing the point. The reason the formula is generally dangerous, and a formula for failure, is that it does not operate by a thoughtful consideration of local/global tradeoffs, but through the imposition of a singular view as “best for all” in a pseudo-scientific sense.
This raises the question of what is the cost of having lots of local optima that are far from a global optimum? What is a good level of granularity for such things? When does the cost of putting shims between lots of different standards outweigh the cost of unifying on a non-optimal global standard that requires no shims?
Great read.
This raises the question of what is the cost of having lots of local optima that are far from a global optimum? What is a good level of granularity for such things? When does the cost of putting shims between lots of different standards outweigh the cost of unifying on a non-optimal global standard that requires no shims?
This reminds of failures like these.