The struggle with being self-taught is that you don’t know what you don’t know. This is probably even worse in areas like Unity, where the coding part is sort of a sideshow to the main event. Nowadays the problem is you lack the discernment to evaluate AI output.
I wrote The Conputer Science Book (https://a.co/d/01e62STx) to act as that basic building block and help orient self-taught developers.
What did come out from the blog post though:
- OP writes really well
- OP has learned to be very honest with themselves (and I hope not too self-critical now)
- OP seems really good at delivering things people like, even if they’re a bit cobbled together
All of which are very valuable and harder to learn than programming fundamentals tbh.
Super interesting company and I like the ambition. Sheffield does have a growing number of “deep tech” startups and university spin outs but not so many HN-style startups. This is probably a good thing long term but it does mean companies fly under the radar somewhat. Sadly salaries still lag too.
I would be interested to know what teen film people consider most representative of their experience. I love “Dazed and Confused” because it seems like the archetypical US high school experience. I was shocked that the director intended it to convey the boredom of that lifestyle because it seemed approx 1000 times more exciting that my teenager lifestyle in the 00s. American Pie was popular at that time but faaar from reality.
I wonder what films teenagers these days relate to.
I’ve had to turn off the iOS auto correct because it became so poor. It’s literally easier to type them out and correct the many mistakes than fight the auto correct.
Have you considered that, rather that having some kind of sinister intent, other people simply have a different opinion on whether a particular idea is new or just a reworking, whether a previous idea is applicable to a current context, etc, etc?
To go way back up to your original post I kind of agree with you on subjectivity but I really don't see how you're then arguing that your framework demonstrates that Rawls etc have been 'debunked'.
It's not clear to me how you can say that a new heuristic is "far inferior", nor how you can say that the academics lack a good framework but you presumably don't. How do you know what a good framework would look like?
I would agree that it's a measurement problem in the sense that we don't even know what or how to measure it. But your analysis is silent on what an error is so I'm not really sure what you think you have gained by it.
The struggle with being self-taught is that you don’t know what you don’t know. This is probably even worse in areas like Unity, where the coding part is sort of a sideshow to the main event. Nowadays the problem is you lack the discernment to evaluate AI output.
I wrote The Conputer Science Book (https://a.co/d/01e62STx) to act as that basic building block and help orient self-taught developers.
What did come out from the blog post though:
- OP writes really well
- OP has learned to be very honest with themselves (and I hope not too self-critical now)
- OP seems really good at delivering things people like, even if they’re a bit cobbled together
All of which are very valuable and harder to learn than programming fundamentals tbh.