To be fair, I don't think the rationale is really "if they have nothing to hide...". More something having to do with whether privacy is something that should come along with the legal arrangement of, say, an LLC.
> just that the blanket argument "X shouldn't get to be secret because I don't think they have a legitimate reason" doesn't differentiate between these two cases.
Not only these cases -- that argument won't differentiate between any cases ;-).
Better I think to make sure we really understand the arguments being made. Good chance the real argument isn't quite _that_ bad.
It's only a problem if you want to use Bayes to take some credences + evidence and prove them irrational (indep. of prior).
Bayes is great for verifying self-consistency: given some priors and some evidence, it produces exactly one set of credences. If you've somehow got a different set, you've gone wrong somewhere (and can be Dutch-booked).
What it won't give you is a full theory of rationality--but IMO this is not a problem with Bayes in particular. No theory will. There /must/ always be some free variable that prevents landing at exactly one set of credences. All theories that disagree come with very strange (and not very believable) implications.
I imagine at least part of this is that specs (and documentation generally) just suck now. It's nigh impossible to sort out which bits are CYA legalese, and which bits are "no, actually, do this or else <terrible outcome>".
That obviously isn't the problem with airplane manufacturing, and maybe not for car mechanics either. But it's totally endemic in the consumer world.
"Do not operate while driving" on car HUDs. "Do not consume if pregnant" on perfectly safe OTC medications. "Do not continue to ride after a crash" on bike frames.
It's not surprising most of this is just ignored now -- there's no information content. The documentation is nothing more than a list of things for which the manufacturer would like not to be liable, and the marginal cost of adding to that list is ~0. It will grow until we run out of room in the manual / space on the packaging.
"Store between 68 and 75 F." Or what? Is that a "must follow or else death", or a "it may reduce efficacy 0.5%" or a "we've never run a sufficiently powerful study under any other conditions, but there's no theoretical reason it should matter"? It matters quite a bit to me which!
I don't see how we can hope to have good-faith communication under such a heavy threat of litigation. I would not be surprised if /that/ turns out to be relevant to the Boeing issue, even if the rest is unrelated.
Agreed with the general point, but it doesn't apply here. Memory locality can be objectively measured (e.g. with last level cache miss counters), and parent comment is correct besides -- it's usually plain to see in the code.
There are mysterious boogiemen in performance optimization, but this isn't really one of them.
I am happy (good) science does not take the "is obvious" claim as sufficient, and instead focuses on proving things with objective facts.
I am not saying these cannot be plain to see in the code, but the best standard IMO is still to measure before and after the optimization. IMHO, again, you can skip that step, but then other people might rightfully ask you what proof you have that the optimization is faster (I would).
Some of these architectural decisions benefit from being made early. That doesn’t mean you can’t objectively defend them but it does mean the measure, optimize, measure loop you might use on a mature codebase to optimize a hot path can’t be the only standard.
It's a matter of economy-- if you spent all day measuring obvious things you'd never get anything done.
Clearly which things you choose to measure should be a function of how certain you are about them, and how much you stand to lose if you get them wrong.
The problem is exactly that the improvements are not most of what you're paying for, at least in many locales where this sort of policy would make a difference.
The claim here is that the military families are /so much more stable/ that it explains their kids (collectively) performing better than every other state in the country.
Obviously the military provides some sort of economic lower bound. But it also applies a pretty harsh upper bound, and has all sorts of other effects that you would expect to push the mean down.
Yes, in my experience rural areas around bases tend to be more well-off than rural areas not around bases -- the base stimulates the local economy quite a bit, if nothing else. (Otoh, the revolving door population is not great for stability.)
But FWIW I do not think the effect is even close to strong enough to explain the results in the article.
Yeah, I had a similar upbringing, and this is my feeling as well. There's a massive trade-off here, but I do feel like the military kids I knew (and run into now) are radically more adaptable and sociable.
Another upside, in retrospect: you end up getting to see, up-close, a huge range of the social/cultural/political landscape.
It's hard to demonize an outgroup much when you at times were that outgroup -- or were at least, in the abstract, some outgroup. You end up forced to confront (deep-down, maybe mostly unconsciously) the arbitrariness and...malleability of a lot of things. You end up with a lot of tolerance. I'm thankful I had that experience, even if it was at times not particularly fun.
