It is and it was a distraction in getting to the core argument, for me at least.
High variance is a good thing if you’re sleepwalking off a cliff already.
In the range of possible ways to describe the status quo, from 0⁄100 to 100⁄100, sleepwalking off a cliff is oddly specific and on one end of an extreme assessment.
Isn’t the main argument that for most cases high variance is bad?
It is and it was a distraction in getting to the core argument, for me at least.
In the range of possible ways to describe the status quo, from 0⁄100 to 100⁄100, sleepwalking off a cliff is oddly specific and on one end of an extreme assessment.
Isn’t the main argument that for most cases high variance is bad?
I have no idea. Which “most cases”? From whose point of view? There is no Law of Nature which states that high variance is bad.
Not to mention that for sufficiently fat-tailed distributions variance does not exist