Companies, particularly large ones, hire "cogs." You fit into an existing recipe that has made the company money for years. Cog work is highly-focused labor that allows companies to scale by division of work.
The reality is, when you're first getting into the industry you're going to be a cog; period. If you want to get hired you'll need to memorize sterile isolated facts about programming (or UX). But getting the job and living your craft are different things.
So you have to separate job-seeking from the art of your craft. Getting jobs is easy. Regurgitate to the hiring manager and keep smiling. But to be happy, and love what you do; this is not something a company can give you. This is something you must create for yourself.
Yes, fundamentals are important. BUT...there are 2 ways to learn them. You can begin as students do, learning them in vacuum. Or you can learn them in-context, as they arise from building real applications. The 2 approaches are not comparable.
When you truly understand something it is largely intuitive, because it was an impression made on you while struggling to create something that survives the real world.
The best way is to jump in and start building. This doesn't make bootcamps useless. Most people lack the passion (yes I believe you need passion) to *want* to build. They are perfectly happy to be given a task and perform that task as needed.
If this is you then bootcamps will help you. They can present you with industry-standard topics, and provide projects (but they are not "real" projects; you have endless support and things known to work. It's not the same. Remember stressors.)
Some people like to be presented with the topics. They think a foundation must precede action. I disagree. Your foundation emerges from struggle, not by having it presented to you. Those with a lot of building exp are miles ahead of CS degrees, bootcamps, etc. No question.
Attempts to break this model usually focus around bootstrapping, enabling companies to grow organically, from the bottom-up; albeit much more slowly than their VC-back counterparts.
3/n
Accepting slower growth is supposed to mean making something better, but better how? Are the products produced by smaller firms better?
Important work here; goes well-beyond physics. I hope upcoming generations of scientists pay close attention.
Some of my quick thoughts:
2/12
What is the qualifier for unification under this framework? How will QM and GR demonstrably work together enough to say they are unified"?
3/12
It would be great to have some distance metric between the shapes you create with this approach and known shapes in nature (some connection between the isomorphic classes of nature's shapes and those generated here).
If you over-manage your distractions you’ll miss out on the surprisal needed to fuel creative efforts. But, if everything is unstructured you’ll fail to maintain momentum on your most important tasks.
Nature exhibits pareto-esque distributions for a reason. It needs to tap into variation (surprisal) to make serendipitous discoveries, but those discoveries must benefit some structured goal.
Like anything important in life, it’s best not to think dualistically. Distractions are good to a point. Structure is good to a point. Too much of either will kill you. Dose response.
Many are unwilling to challenge established ideas for fear they lack the knowledge necessary to advance opposition.
But truth accommodates the dissident far more than those hoping to maintain the commonly accepted.
2/5
2 important points to understand:
1) The power of refutation lies in epistemic asymmetry; it requires far less information to refute a theory than to support it.
2) All attempts to assess a model’s validity must remain agnostic to the tools used to build and promote it.
3/5
This means theory exists in a constant state of susceptibility to counter evidence, and that countering does not require familiarity with the language used to defend a model.
You cannot engineer your career. You cannot craft your success. Your accomplishments will not come by following a plan, mimicking your hero’s habits, or staying up-to-date on the latest trends.
Your luminaries are statistical aberrations, with stories no more interesting or unique than those who have failed. You are reading but one of countless plausible narratives in an ocean of silent evidence.
That feeling you get after purchasing the latest book from the business section is just the recycled high that accompanies the illusion convenient narratives provide. An endless attempt at grasping the mirage of an unworkable blueprint.