4 ms·

>> 8. In nature, the optimum is almost always in the middle somewhere. Distrust assertions that the optimum is at an extreme point. Is it contentious to say we

>> 8. In nature, the optimum is almost always in the middle somewhere. Distrust assertions that the optimum is at an extreme point. Is it contentious to say we're going through a point in time where this is not commonly held? What I really want to figure out is am I mis-remembering or were the late 90s / early 00s pretty strongly centre biased?

meheleventyone 6y ago
This is the classic fallacy of the middle ground when it comes to opinions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation Particularly as “the middle” can be dependent on where the ends are. The middle ground of American politics is different to the middle ground of European or Chinese politics for example.
dsr_ 6y ago
Let's consider this in the context of engineering, rather than politics. It's not clear that this is a good rule. If you want to get mass from ground to orbit, the rocket equation means that you want the least quantity of infrastructure mass that will work, maximizing the payload fraction. If you're in charge of safety equipment on an orbital station, you want the most effective things you can cram in to your mass budget. Life support? Whenever possible, eliminate it in favor of automation. But if you need it, you either want minimal (emergency only) or maximal (resilient against disasters) to the extent of your available space/power/mass.
- jcims 6y ago
  You're absolutely right, but I think the point is that the rocket with the maximum payload fraction isn't necessarily the best.
- okl 6y ago
  Right, if the optimum is not the maximum/minimum of X, then you are probably not optimizing for X, or you have additional constraints.
  - marcosdumay 6y ago
    The thing is, you always have more than one optimization target.
tuatoru 6y ago
Another formulation would be "optimising on one parameter means pessimizing on one or more others".

meheleventyone 6y ago

This is the classic fallacy of the middle ground when it comes to opinions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation Particularly as “the middle” can be dependent on where the ends are. The middle ground of American politics is different to the middle ground of European or Chinese politics for example.

dsr_ 6y ago

Let's consider this in the context of engineering, rather than politics. It's not clear that this is a good rule. If you want to get mass from ground to orbit, the rocket equation means that you want the least quantity of infrastructure mass that will work, maximizing the payload fraction. If you're in charge of safety equipment on an orbital station, you want the most effective things you can cram in to your mass budget. Life support? Whenever possible, eliminate it in favor of automation. But if you need it, you either want minimal (emergency only) or maximal (resilient against disasters) to the extent of your available space/power/mass.

jcims 6y ago
You're absolutely right, but I think the point is that the rocket with the maximum payload fraction isn't necessarily the best.
okl 6y ago
Right, if the optimum is not the maximum/minimum of X, then you are probably not optimizing for X, or you have additional constraints.
- marcosdumay 6y ago
  The thing is, you always have more than one optimization target.

tuatoru 6y ago

Another formulation would be "optimising on one parameter means pessimizing on one or more others".