I'm not really sure why you think this needs substantiation.
The logic goes like this:
It would be utterly stupid for terrorist groups to rely on digital communications simply because of how well locked down the various government agencies have made it.
We assume that they are not utterly stupid.
I don't think it's a crazy statement or needing further justification. I doubt terrorist groups are that sophisticated but I would assume they have plugged the simplest holes.
I can't say whether or not it is the standard approach but I do know that it is very common in many countries to teach a linear algebra course that is heavy on matrix operations, that you can come away believing that linear algebra is somehow _about_ matrices and their operations. I know many in my university class seemed to believe that.
A book I enjoyed is Axler's Linear Algebra Done Right[0], in which, if I remember correctly, doesn't contain a single matrix.
I've recently started going through Axler carefully and doing the problems, a quarantine activity I guess, and have been enjoying it. I actually learned about this book on an older HN post.
It does have plenty of matrices. The main thing it really does is avoid determinants until the very end. The determinant is certainly something I remember learning as a kind of rote operation, without really understanding any intuition behind why you'd multiply and add these numbers in this particular way. I still feel lacking in "feel" here, which is why I suppose I'm going through Axler now.
For example, I remember looking at the linear algebra book my department had used previously. Early on, it introduced the concept of the transpose of a matrix:
Superficially, it looks like something good to introduce. It is fodder for easy homework exercises, and there is a satisfyingly long list of formal properties satisfied.
But why? What does the transpose mean? For what sort of problem would you want to compute it?
There are good answers to these questions (see the "transpose of a linear map" section of the Wikipedia article I linked), but they are not easy for a beginner to the subject to appreciate.
IMO Axler's book should be read either during or after you take an introductory course on Linear Algebra.
> You are probably about to begin your second exposure to linear algebra. Unlike your first brush with the subject, which probably emphasized Euclidean spaces and matrices, this encounter will focus on abstract vector spaces and linear maps.
You might ask yourself if the luxury brands you buy are actually as high quality as you think. Do you survey the items for signs of superior quality? It's not a very easy thing to do if your not educated in the matter.
I'm not suggesting you are wrong in your thoughts or beliefs, but you might discover that some products are not evidently higher quality and that the assumption of quality came about as a result of its association with the idea of of luxury and aspiration.
for example, clothing construction at the higher levels is not exactly easy to judge. I don't know anything about stitching patterns or common fail points, but if Ralph Lauren advertise in a way that suggests that the people who wear their clothes are also the people who wear Rolex and drive Mercedes, people will make that connection.
Even if you think immune to this stuff, you aren't. If you think you could be classified into any particular social group, you are probably riddled with these kind of beliefs. I think it takes a prolonged and deliberate effort to avoid the tricks of advertising
About clothes: Since my wife is sewing a lot for herself and our kids, and does this very well, I can see the quality difference towards normal clothes so much.
My tailored suits already opened my eyes before, but in common day items it is ever more apparent to me now. Seams that don't fit or are crooked, stitches missing etc.
With respect to BMW or Audi etc. Most of the 'quality' comes from constant re-iteration of reviewers calling something high-quality, just because it is the way they know it.
Clothes and accessories are more straightforwardly signaling devices. Cars are interesting because they split the quality vs. signaling divide. To some of my friends, the point of a good car is to be seen in it. To others, like my dad, the point of a good car is what you can do with it alone on a country road. If may only leave the garage when you're taking it out for fun; you roll up to work, social occasions, etc. in your more ordinary daily driver.
The dropping of standards is always going to make things a bit easier on yourself but if there isn't really much more to it than that, is proclaiming "It's okay to be messy" really a good thing?
I don't think(I might be wrong) other engineering fields can get away so lightly with such attitudes, why do you think we can? Particularly in light of so many security disasters unfolding around us. How can you justify an attitude that seems to move in the opposite direction of where many believe we should be heading, i.e. tighter control, more strongly enforced standards and a distancing from the 'move fast, break stuff' ethos
Order has as many flaws as disorder. There's a balance in between.
Many of us are familiar with that balance in our daily lives; e.g. we don't mop the floor so clean we can eat off it. But code is often continually polished, refactored, documented as soon as there is the slightest smell.
We do keep tidy enough. The standards for office cleanliness never qualifies to surgery standards, and yet a lot of people like to compare their code to medical device safety levels.
Besides that, there is a clear structure to mess. Too much or too little order and you lose control. The right amount will give you the correct structure.
The logic goes like this: It would be utterly stupid for terrorist groups to rely on digital communications simply because of how well locked down the various government agencies have made it. We assume that they are not utterly stupid.
I don't think it's a crazy statement or needing further justification. I doubt terrorist groups are that sophisticated but I would assume they have plugged the simplest holes.