I think the main point made by the author is that we should _be able to_ read properly and consciously make the decision to do so for some texts. I don't think anyone would argue that we should carefully read every single shallow, poorly written blog post out there.
"We need to cultivate a new kind of brain: a “bi-literate” reading brain capable of the deepest forms of thought in either digital or traditional mediums. A great deal hangs on it: the ability of citizens in a vibrant democracy to try on other perspectives and discern truth; the capacity of our children and grandchildren to appreciate and create beauty; and the ability in ourselves to go beyond our present glut of information to reach the knowledge and wisdom necessary to sustain a good society."
Basecamp has 50 employees. Google was founded in 1998 and has 50k employees. I think there's something more to be said about the differences in their experiences and the kind of mistakes they have made.
Not necessarily. IMO, she proposes a specific way of "thinking" about the paper's content (I use another approach [1]). Papers are written following a certain structure because many people think it's a better way of presenting the ideas in detail/with the necessary rigor (that's what other "scientists" in the field would expect). For example, no researcher expects a five-sentence summary of the background. Personally, I expect an explanation of the relevant concepts/techniques and some sort of analysis of how existing work relates to the paper (instead of a list of related papers). At least in software engineering, many papers state the research questions explicitly, i.e., they would be identified if you read the paper from beginning to end. They tend to have a "results" section as well, so summarizing the results myself would be an intellectual exercise. Once you understand how papers are usually structured, you pick up on many of those things as you go (I mean, as you simply read the paper as the author intended).
On a side note, I'd say that many researchers don't do a good job of conveying their ideas clearly (it gets worse with conference presentations). It won't really matter in what order you try to read their papers.
all scientist were non-scientists first though, correct?
Look, I get that there's some natural professional context and lingo that goes into these things, but for all the angst that goes into what esteem that population at large holds up the science community
making their work more accessible to both novices and interested outsiders would be a nice step in the right direction
I agree with you. To put it simply, papers are optimized for the scientific community and making them "more accessible" to outsiders has a cost. I'd settle for better writing and presentations within the scientific community for now. If you ever find researchers that blog about their research in simple terms, I think it's safe to assume they're using their personal time to do that (I know of very few; Andy Ko [1] comes to mind).
I think that they often do when it's appropriate, but the way they make them more accessible isn't by changing their papers but by giving talks or presentations that are less technical (like TED talks for example).
This seems like a good approach in my humble opinion.
I suppose you can still focus on a few technologies when looking for new projects and freelancing. At the beginning it should be quite complicated since you won't like the idea of letting a project go just because it requires some new framework you don't know, but it's a price to be paid in order to have more expertise and experience using your skillset (proper financial planning might help in this transition).
If you keep learning and relearning things for each 2-weeks project you find, you'll end up without much depth in any of the technologies you have used. The question then is: which technologies/frameworks/languages should you focus on?
But most developers i know are proficient in multiple frameworks and languages, that's why i'm trying to be at least good in them, i suppose the only way to do so is to create a repo for each new thing i learn in github and make sure to put a new project in each rep every week
I'm not saying you can only know a couple of frameworks, but it 's hard to be an expert in Python/Django, Ruby/Rails, Node.js and Java. You can do the same for frontend stuff. For example: I think it's a better option to be a Django and Angular.js expert, good at Node.js and Backbone.js.. and kind of ignore projects related to Java, Rails, Ember, React etc. You can pick anything you want, it's just an example. You can still work on side-projects with the trendy stuff and migrate depending on your interests and the market, but you shouldn't transition into new things every month. Just my 2 cents, best of luck. :)
Are they proficient, or are they good at faking it until they become proficient?
I have a lot of tricks in my toolbox to seem ready and productive, while I'm scrambling behind the scenes to actually become ready and productive. (Difference is, I'm willing to admit it, because I am confident in the value I create.)
I'm curious to know how you admit it. I recently completed a website redesign for a relative in Brazil. He wanted to use the existing MySQL db and some PHP functions, and expand on both. I had some experience with HTML, very little with CSS and Javascript, and had never built a website using a text editor alone for the code. I'd just completed the HTML/CSS, JavaScript, and jQuery courses on Codecademy and was excited to apply what I'd learned, but I made it very clear that I wasn't an expert at frontend code nor design and had no PHP nor databse experience and would need to learn them to complete the project.
He showed me various websites and features he liked, and I recreated them with HTML, CSS, and jQuery designing the new site to his satisfaction in about 5 days. Then, I powered through a couple tutorials on PHP and MySQL for a couple days. Most of the old PHP that he wanted to salvage was filled with deprecated code, so I rewrote it. The data he wanted to store and use for the new site required entirely new db tables. So the new site didn't reuse any of the old code. It took me a month to complete the site and get it online. A few days later, the owner of a quite-a-bit larger company that partners with my relative's company told him that he really liked the new site, and asked for my info. My relative told me that I was far too modest about my ability before I took on his project; that I wasn't an amateur at all.
I know that I was and still consider myself very much an amateur, but I know I can (and enjoy to) learn new technologies pretty quickly. I take pride in doing a job well, and really believe I'll provide a lot of value to the projects I work on. I just can't sell myself without being completely honest about areas that I know I have lots left to learn. How can I be completely honest without seeming incompetent next to a 'professional' (and great salesman) who only knows how to plug content into a CMS template? How do you express your confidence in the value you create when you're aware you will have to learn a lot to create that value?
"I don't know how to do that. But I know how to do X and Y, and can be productive using that by Z date. Is that an acceptable starting time for your project?"
That said, I don't consult or contract anymore, I work FT instead. As a FT employee, seeking a fit requires a greater investment of time on both sides, and a slight misalignment can prove valuable to both parties.
I've been seriously annoyed about that since I started working in one of those open offices. I've read a few articles about it and cannot understand why would someone like to be in such an environment. Stack Exchange's organization/culture seems to be a quite balanced approach, providing both the common areas where people can be together working/relaxing AND a proper space for them to stay focused while working alone on something. Really good to know there are companies trying to get it right instead of cool.
"We need to cultivate a new kind of brain: a “bi-literate” reading brain capable of the deepest forms of thought in either digital or traditional mediums. A great deal hangs on it: the ability of citizens in a vibrant democracy to try on other perspectives and discern truth; the capacity of our children and grandchildren to appreciate and create beauty; and the ability in ourselves to go beyond our present glut of information to reach the knowledge and wisdom necessary to sustain a good society."