This article seems based on a false analogy. Real (geologic) hills can be measured. Their dimensions and slopes are objective quantities. There is no debate ab

This article seems based on a false analogy. Real (geologic) hills can be measured. Their dimensions and slopes are objective quantities. There is no debate about their shape. Mr. Dixon's hills (objective functions) are the stuff of wants, dreams, and deep conjecture. Their shapes are highly subjective and highly dimensional. So much so that the 3d-terrain construct adds little to the topic – whether a gradient, simulated annealing, or any other analytic approach is employed. To me, the article is a whimsical piece of entertainment and is not useful for even notional career planning.