It makes quite a bit of sense to go back to more archaic learning methods. I don't mean that in a snarky way, but only for lack of a better term to describe very very old. Apprenticeships were how the average population learned prior to colleges becoming a normal thing. If you wanted to learn how to make chainmail, you had to get an apprenticeship with a blacksmith - learning was done on-the-job. You didn't go to college and learn how to make armor, farm, write literature and then just get whatever job when you got out. You started at a filthy young age in that one craft.
Nowadays, college educations are worth basically nothing. You're not thought to be any smarter than the next guy and unless you go to a really well known institution that provides you esteem and wealthy connections, it's essentially just an advanced High School degree.
The point I'm getting at is - and I've seen this in the occasional job search I've done - the Generalist role is dead. In theory, it makes sense, wouldn't 5 people with general knowledge more slowly build a worse product than 5 different experts? Experts are always wanted and that only comes through years of dedication to that craft. And you simply cannot get that in college. On a side note... I think College is just a 6 figure right-of-passage into adulthood and learning how to feed yourself, become responsible enough to wake up on time, and find good friends.
The problem with Apprenticeships is they evolve slowly. AKA, you probably don't want to be a buggy whip apprentice.
The real advantage of a high level generalist education is it enables on the job training. Someone with a 2.5 GPA from a reputable collage can do most jobs in the US with an additional 1 year of training. But, someone with a 8th grade education plus 8 years working as a landscaper is far more limited should say a back problem force them into a more sedentary occupation.
Further, let me list the jobs that probably this doesn't apply to: doctor, nurse, engineer, lawyer, programmer (probably), scientist, actuary, machinist, welder, etc. This represents a lot of jobs in the US.
Now a list of jobs that you can train for in a year, but which don't need a 4 year degree: truck driver, construction worker, retail employee, many restaurant staff, janitorial, basically anything in the general service industry. This is also a lot of jobs.
Maybe you could name 10-20 jobs which do fall under the general degree plus a year of training?
Edit: in the general case, I would replace on the job with 1 year job specific training. Companies may or may not offer this as on the job training depending on the demand, but 6mo-1yr retraining is not a major issue.
There is a huge realm of office jobs that take basic collage level skills. EX: Software tester, receptionist, Manager, etc. (Substitute) Teaching is another huge area that often takes collage education, but many states have a 3.0 GPA requirement.
Many companies will higher programmers without the background, granted you’re not going to make much but it's a start.
The US military for example will train you to be a welder or machinist in less than 1 year. Depending on demand the same thing can happen in private industry but you’re starting doing true grunt work.
Nursing is something of a grey area. You can quickly become an orderly without a related background and there are various levels of certifications necessary to do various types of nursing. EMT takes collage level general skills + 6 months training though again you don't need a degree just that level of basic skill.
The Police are another area that takes people without any background training and may require a degree.
PS: That's not to say some high school students could not succeed at these jobs with similar training. However the demonstrated skills associated with a collage degree are significantly higher.
One of the things I'm pretty jealous of is that in my career path (as admittedly vague it is... I'm 25 and my education & experience is in marketing, but being a CMO certainly isn't my life's ambition) is that I couldn't really start young and produce a tangible good that's worth anything to jump start a career since Marketing is really all about numbers. Anything without results is just speculation. (Nice job cross posting across the internet, btw)
I'm not a programmer, so I can't build an app... I'm certainly not an artist and can't paint or sing... Although I like carpentry and ok at it, I don't want to be a carpenter... So for me, being successful and earning a decent wage is either from climbing the corporate ladder or building my own company. Both are possible, but talent is really not much of a factor.
Anyways, the point I'm getting at is that it's impressive and inspiring to see talented people (like yourself) with artistic skill-sets and ambitions put the hard work in to get their inherent skillsets noticed and make a career for themselves.
Talent doesn't get you everywhere - and neither will hard work - but together they can do great things.
I don't, nor have I ever, considered myself particularly talented. At best, I would say I have the drive to force myself to practice. To say things came easily to me is an outright lie.
Hard work, persistence, and luck. Stir and serve chilled.
As a product manager I wish I had spent more time on either learning to program or preferably designing interfaces for product ideas that I had. I did some of this stuff but not as much as I now realise I could have.
As a CMO the best evidence of your skills is in marketing a product of any kind. It could be a blog or product that you've created yourself, or pro bono work for someone else.
None of this is to downplay the chops of this artist - it really is amazing.
I guess I could clarify that what I'm talking about is the time it takes for skills to become apparent and credible. I'm not saying Noah's first works were Old Master level[1] or that they even are now, but clearly you can look at them and say "Kids got talent and has made tangible improvements."
Sure, I can start a blog talking about social media marketing, but basically it's starting from absolute zero - whereas Noah even early at his earliest started from a place a bit higher. For me to start a blog and say unique things about marketing that haven't been said before and then get that noticed... I consider myself to be smart, but I don't know if I'm on that level.
And sure, like you and I both said, I can build a product (I'm trying as we speak like everyone else is on HN) to develop my marketing skills, but then lets face it... if it's actually worth doing, my job isn't going to be primarily about marketing; it will be about leading a team, building a great product, and yes a bit of marketing.
>For me to start a blog and say unique things about marketing that haven't been said before and then get that noticed... I consider myself to be smart, but I don't know if I'm on that level.
As you know, marketing is all about the packaging, and how you sell the sizzle, not the steak. So even if you think it's all been said before, it doesn't have to stop you from saying it in your own way, with your own unique insights, distribution methods, etc.
And a reason for that is the utter absurdity in regards to account deletion. You have to do fairly standard things like identify email, password and some contacts.... but you also have to know the EXACT month and year of which you signed up. And unless you got lucky and didn't delete your sign up email up there is no possible way to find out. When I first signed up, I had a ridiculous name like everyone else did back in the day, and I wanted to just move on. Not very serious, I know, but this issue can be for many circumstances.
I really wish that some legislation would be passed for a "Nuke" button standard on all digital platforms that allows you or a designed individual to erase profiles at will.
Why do companies do stupid things like that? Is it a technical issue or do they REALLY care that much about having your name on file even if you want to delete your account?
Maybe there's an argument for Facebook keeping your pictures in case you ever want to come back (even though I still believe they should delete them if you ask them to). But only your name? What possible use could they have for that?
There are probably business reasons for wanting the number of accounts to never go down, but I'll give you a technical reason: the database schema.
Most big companies will have a big database holding user data, with many tables that have cross-reference fields. There is one table with the master-record for each user account, and that record's unique key is cross-referenced in many other tables that hold data related to the account, and many of those cross-reference other user accounts as well.
To delete the master record, the database schema requires deletion of all of the cross-referenced records too. But when those are also referencing other users, you'd have to delete their master records too. You can't do that, so you're not able to delete anything.
This is a naive implementation, but it's common for databases designed without forethought about record deletion. The typical solution is to add an 'active' flag field, and to do 'soft-deletes' which just sets the flag to false. The record isn't deleted, so there is no problem with references. However, now ALL of your queries need to include 'where active=true' to make sure soft-deleted records don't get displayed. That can be a huge retro-fit if you didn't plan for it from the start, and it requires extra care even if you did. Which is why it's often not done.
Before GMail a typical webmail provider gave you so little space that deleting irrelevant e-mails was standard practice; otherwise your inbox would soon fill up.
Frankly, I had to delete my e-mails on school Linux server AND not so long ago, on company mailbox. Yes, this is ridiculous and yes, it happens.
I use a 503(c) service for email, the only thing is that they rely on dontations, so the more space I use the more it'll cost them. So out of being curteous to them, I delete any unwanted email. One other reason I delete email is because I like having a 'clean' inbox.
But despite all of that, it's really Skype's fault for assuming that a user will keep randomly chosen, arbitrary data like that. Not all of us have photographic memories, so the vast userbase, as a result, will have great difficulty in deleting their account. There's also a very high probability that it's done by Skype deliberately, to stop people deleting their accounts (Because data mining is 'phun'!)
It's a huge problem that people that people haven't understood this. For me, it's akin to Apple back in the early days, and to some extent right now, enforcing low bit rate standards on iTunes. They're hinging on enough people not being educated or interested enough to protest. Just because it is possible to get away with this kind of, it really frustrates me because it lowers the standard for the creation and display of art. You may not notice an immediate difference, but you definitely would if they're side by side.
As for the new IMAX screens, not only is it the size of the screen, but the quality of the projector and speaker setup not to mention the actual proportion of the screen as well.
There are only a handful of "true original" IMAX screens. I'm not hating on their brand, I know they've needed to dilute to actually not go bankrupt, but it's important to note that there is a legitimate difference between "large format" (that's the term that's replacing IMAX for legalities sake and so IMAX competitors can be introduced and undercut IMAX licensing fees) and IMAX.
To be totally honest, they're in a lot of trouble as a company and they desperately need to find a way to save their product before competitors like Regals "RPX Experience" ruin them.
It's so exciting that going to a meeting will soon be like going to my doctors office, filling out tons of forms and I can spend more time poking at a little screen.
Technology can be super useful (obviously), but this is just total overkill.
I for one am looking forward to a day where strangers don't have to see my awful handwriting. Although the thought of touching a tablet that all of the infected patients before me have touched might keep me to the pen and paper.
Memory is one of the most important aspects in intelligence. Personally, I have a lot of knowledge but low recall speed. With a little context, I have no problem though.
Anyways, improving your memory is a big first step in bettering your intelligence. I highly recommend the book "Walking with Einstein: The Art and Science of Remembering Everything."
I'd also recommend The Art of Memory, which is not only an introduction to the classic discipline of method of loci (memory theatres) and a great book dealing with history and art of the Renaissance, it even goes over the text of Ad Herenium, the greek classic that brought us this lost art. It's especially interesting for applications like storytelling (know all stories from your own life with perfect recall) and rhetoric.
Also deeply related to memory and cognition, this time coming from the older yet culture of the Vedas, there are celastrus seeds, aka the intellect tree, perhaps the oldest nootropic of all, and more natural and noticeable than most.
You sir are absolutely correct. I first read about the uses of hemp a long while ago in Uncle Johns Bathroom reader (I shit you not). And that got me curious and looked into it more and its uses are quite vast and the cost to produce is relatively cheap! But again, existing industries have completely suffocated its growth through political influence and so virtually no one knows about its practicality. Real shame...
> A third approach is find somebody you want to learn from and work with them. Any project you pick will never be as important as what you learn from the project.
Finding a good teacher for whatever skills or traits you want to develop is incredibly hard but easily one of the most rewarding things you can do for yourself
