>the experience and the patience necessary to fix the system incrementally from within
Occasionally, this doesn't exist. Hence, for example, the American Civil War. You're making the mistake of assuming that software engineering design schema work for all real-world problems (or, rather, that that which would be foolish in approaching the redesign of software is necessarily also foolish in reforming other systems).
In fact, the "incremental change over time" approach is often the comfortable, irresponsible choice, in no small part because it allows bad actors the opportunity to adjust their approach to align with the new rules. This is especially true when the corrupt status quo threatens to collapse not only the system in question, but also many interrelated systems. The last thing you need when approaching a cliff is the car enthusiast in charge of the wheel and the child lock. Sometimes brakes aren't enough; you might need to just jump.
I think you'll find that most people who focus on identity politics would rather have that gap closed for everyone, than to see specifically people who look like them in places of power why they themselves continue to languish. The issue is that these people who focus on identity politics aren't actually stupid and, in fact, do understand the rules of this game that they were swept into (without their consent, mind you): power accrues more power and tribalism is rampant. Under the status quo, people who've been marginalized in the past have a better chance when they increase their numbers in seats of power. Further, strides forward in economic and social wellbeing tend to leave them behind unless they speak up.
So the dilemma in the situation you describe is between whether to ignore diversity concerns and in turn be ignored, or to speak up and risk losing class solidarity. It sucks that we have to make that decision; it would be better if less-marginalized people made proactive efforts to ensure we're involved in and will explicitly benefit from initiatives or movements that implicitly aligns with our interests.
It's been well known for a while among those who are honest, with themselves and with the evidence, that degree requirements are mostly a cultural gatekeeping exercise for entry-level work. That isn't to say that training and expertise aren't critical, particularly the more responsibility a worker takes on; it's more that one rarely requires 4 years of preparation for a placement that involves work a supervisor that's known you for a month, at best, will trust you with. And the old axiom holds: "The best way to learn how to do something is to do it."
A degree does show that you're committed and willing to jump through hoops (even if only because you don't know any better).
The focus for education is often way too much on the actual instruction (whatever form it may take) rather than the "life structure" the learning takes place in. Let's look at this guy's situation:
>He wasn't working; he had enough money to comfortably pursue this as a full time effort, including paying his tuition, fees, and "room and board" without going into debt
>He was able to establish a routine which included self-care, meaning that he was unhampered by external obligations, mental illness, or material need
>He was able to sequester his studying physically (having a separate home office) and temporally (again, being able to establish a routine which didn't include studying during the time he'd set aside for other things)
>He was studying something he was interested in, with prior knowledge respected and support forthcoming from resources (through a paywall, of course)
If successful study is a function of focus and progression over an extended period, it makes sense that these factors would contribute to that success, as they would have been essential for his ability to achieve and maintain focus (he says as much, in that he mentions never getting close to burnout). In many ways, I think much of what we have in terms of material and presentation is already adequate; the problem is that so many people (including many children) are kept from circumstances conducive to effective learning. People complain about a hypothetical, robust social safety net being an attempt to secure "equality of outcome," but it's evident that successes and failures tend to compound due to the way that outcomes serve as a foundation for the structure future endeavors take place in.
Those were years after PCs had made a foothold in (well-off) US households because they allowed you to do digital word-processing and spreadsheets at home.
I don't know if the Apple Watch is a great example of product strategy, specifically, driving success. Pebble and other companies established those use cases first, but failed to get traction.
This is it. Everyone knew that it was a hedge to get in on the ground floor in case the technology blew up faster than anyone could predict. Nobody wants to be the person who missed out on the next Google or Facebook, especially Google or Facebook.
This is the thing that gets me. There are plenty of people who would be willing to design around existing constraints, just because they think the tech is cool and they want to see what they can do with it.
But the cost of entry is mid-4-figures, between the hardware itself and the required development equipment. It's obvious that the people making the hardware and platform aren't a wide-enough cross-section of the public to create what business interests or consumers don't know that they want yet. They're shooting themselves in the foot, trying to maintain control over the platform.
Not everyone. The potential is absolutely there, and even the devices that are available today would be groundbreaking, if only someone could figure out something to do with them.
As for that, the ecosystem is far too closed. ML and Microsoft seem to be approaching the technology Apple-style, with expensive hardware and by-the-numbers (if that) developer support, which would allow them to control the platform - and profits - once the we reach some sort of inflection point where either a unpredicted killer app emerges or the tech matures enough for the more obvious applications to be viable.
They're not going to get there, though; someone is going to (or perhaps already has) released a cheaper alternative with a low barrier-to-entry creation platform, and that will allow the number of people who have access to both a good-enough device and a good-enough skillset to reach a critical mass. They'll create for that device and platform and everyone else will be playing catch-up. It's the early PC and BASIC all over again.
Do you know what would be really interesting? If Sony's PS5 were to launch with an affordable VR headset and an updated version of Media Molecule's Dreams.
I don't think that's true. The audio experience in many movie theaters is markedly terrible, due to the lack of proper volume calibration these days. And for many people, their car's audio system is the best that they own. I suppose the bottleneck would be delivery, but there are high-end, low-latency networked audio solutions out there, so streaming to a decent quality should be possible.
Occasionally, this doesn't exist. Hence, for example, the American Civil War. You're making the mistake of assuming that software engineering design schema work for all real-world problems (or, rather, that that which would be foolish in approaching the redesign of software is necessarily also foolish in reforming other systems).
In fact, the "incremental change over time" approach is often the comfortable, irresponsible choice, in no small part because it allows bad actors the opportunity to adjust their approach to align with the new rules. This is especially true when the corrupt status quo threatens to collapse not only the system in question, but also many interrelated systems. The last thing you need when approaching a cliff is the car enthusiast in charge of the wheel and the child lock. Sometimes brakes aren't enough; you might need to just jump.