generalizations

Encoding every single edge-case into the optimizer is not as good as finding better generalizations, automatically.

All these labelings do not reflect the true nature of how things are, and they are often generalizations.

That's the thing about reading articles like these, they are massive generalizations that apply to big league players.

A lot of those experiences did not go well, but it would be wrong for me to make generalizations.

To quote Paul Buchheit, all such 'advice' is just someone's limited life experience expressed as a set of over-generalizations.

In school my professors pushed me to make ridiculous generalizations from my tiny experiments.

But getting the wrong generalizations in your head can prevent you from seeing things.

To even start thinking along the lines that one solution would fit all problems is to engage in the most wide over-generalizations.

These generalizations are there for us to start to get things to work.

I will always challenge people to think hard about their own generalizations, just like I challenge myself.

The article's point is that generalizations about GMd foods are ignorant and each case needs to be evaluated on it's own merits and dangers.

Sweeping generalizations based on race and gender aren't helpful in this discussion.

It's dangerous to make big generalizations like "no one actually caring if the statistics are valid." This simply is not true.

You need to be a bit more careful with sweeping generalizations like "no one." Here are two cases just off the top of my head that almost perfectly contradict what you wrote.

> "these people..." gotta be careful with the generalizations.

"nor do I think they're terribly controversial as broad generalizations." I do think they are controversial, as the statistics are usually very shallow.

Generalizations are fun, but they don't make the greatest arguments.