kenster07

Consider this: many great "theoretical" discoveries in history, including those in CS, were not theoretical at their inception. They were the result of people trying to solve practical problems -- not the product of a bunch of debt-ridden students trying to maximize GPA in an ivory tower. This cannot be overstated.

At the end of the day, the distinction between academic and practical is largely self-imposed, at least partially ego-driven, and probably highly inefficient for society as a whole. If you want "practical" people to engage "theoretical" problems, then make it practical for them.

Comment · 12 years ago

The fact is that past X hours most people just aren't very productive

I agree with the sentiment, but people need to remember that the number 'X' is different for different people.

Comment · 12 years ago

The article's title is quite link-baity. That being said, it is obvious that technology will displace more and more traditional human labor. Of course, unlike in the past, human labor becomes increasingly unnecessary to sustain said humans on a biological level. It's a trade-off, and the cognitive dissonance is the "traditional" (20th century, Agent Smith) model of human worth being rendered invalid by the realities of technological progress.

Comment · 12 years ago

The article seems to subtly suggest that if you do not have an advanced degree [1], you do not have "brains." As someone who has "brains" but has chosen not to pursue and advanced degree, if I were working for the author, my reaction would be to question this person's judgment on several levels: 1) Implicitly putting down those who work with him who don't have advanced degrees. 2) Susceptibility to autobiographically-based irrationality, aka too much Koolaid.

Why is this an irrational viewpoint? Sure, someone who has an advanced degree is unlikely to be dumb. But as any remotely educated person should know, it does not follow that someone who does not have an advanced degree is not smart.

I think the obsession with advanced degrees is fascinating though. Do people really believe that getting an advanced degree will make one a more productive web developer? Are the years spent getting that advanced degree remotely comparable to years of meaningful industry experience? Or comparable to using the countless online resources to educate oneself in topics that are directly applicable to web development?? Hint: no.

[1] "Brains don’t matter as much as resilience in your first couple of years as a startup. I borrowed a lot of money to put myself through one undergraduate and two masters programs so, yes, it hurts to write that."

Comment · 12 years ago

That's a bit of an overstatement. Many purchases are time-sensitive to the extent that expected deflation would have to be very high.

Comment · 12 years ago

This blog entry is not very generalizable. It implies a certain kind of programming for a certain kind of business.

Comment · 12 years ago

This whole situation is more depressing than anything. Who would have thought that exemplars of our industry would cheat their own employees to this degree. One might have expected this in some other industries, but software?

Comment · 12 years ago

"The idea that you will learn more in industry than in a CS degree only applies if A) you are in a shitty CS program or B) you aren't trying hard enough to learn anything."

Disagree. If you learn more in 3 years of college than you do 3 years on the job, you are a shitty employee.

Comment · 12 years ago

So you should run away from Google?

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. I actually think you have a valid point.

Comment · 12 years ago

I disagree. If this person is a good abstract and technical thinker, he should be able to make the leap if he is sufficiently motivated.

You absolutely do NOT need multiple years of CS undergrad to have a sense for scalability. If you open your mind, you will see that world history is chock full of systems that have scaled -- they just don't happen to be written in binary or backed by CS degrees. And I would say that these historical systems share more similarities than you would think with scalable computer systems.

In order to be good at this kind of thing, one just needs some sense for abstract thinking -- which countless non-programmers have, we are actually not unique in that regard -- and if you are adequately dedicated, a few weeks (or a few months at most) of study time to understand fundamental algos and data structures. After one has an understanding of it, it will certainly take more time to become practically comfortable using said concepts, but that's what entry level jobs are for.