Personally, I'm a generalist in the worst sense in that I've read about a lot and can talk for day about various things, but am only proficient in one or two things.
lmk when you find a fix for this :(
On Being a Generalist
51–60 of 140 posts
Re: On Being a Generalist
#52In short: in sparse graphs, mobility dominates.
Re: On Being a Generalist
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, and given the costs to become the very best, it's often a choice like this. Say you need to hire athletes with in experience swimming, running, and gymnastics to design some classes for your school. Would you rather hire: - 3 gold medal Olympians, each of whom have medaled in the 3 areas - 1 bronze medal Olympian who has single-handedly medaled in swimming, running, and gymnastics?
> - 1 bronze medal Olympian who has single-handedly medaled in swimming, running, and gymnastics? Has anyone ever achieved this? It sounds like you're saying you would rather hire 1 person that doesn't exist rather than hire 3 people that do.
Doesn't look like it.
Re: On Being a Generalist
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, they hire Competitive Programmers - this is a separate specialty, but Google assumes such programmers should be able jump into real world software engineering. They recognize the flaw but so far can't come up with a different way.
> No, they hire Competitive Programmers More specifically, programmers who spend a lot of time learning how to solve algorithm puzzles. This heavily favors single people who have lots of time to devote to studying such things and disadvantages time-constrained people such as developers with a family life at home.
Re: On Being a Generalist
#55> Some companies only hire specialists. If you’re Google, it makes little sense to hire a generalist, I think. Having been through a Google interview and offer process, this seems exactly backwards: Google selects heavily for generalists, so that they have people who can adapt to and integrate different technologies. (I'm sure they do hire specialists in various areas, but their interview process optimizes for genera…
Re: On Being a Generalist
#56I’m a generalist and I would 100% recommend it over being a specialist because you get to see the whole picture. You start to notice patterns across different programming paradigms that make you a better developer. You learn techniques to quickly teach yourself and learn about the problem domain which translate into other parts of your life besides computers. I’ve taught myself how to work on cars using deductive log…
It is not because you are comfortable doing something that it is a good idea for anyone to be like that, we are all different. And we need specialists, how will you build a new microprocessor without having any specialist in microprocessors ?
Re: On Being a Generalist
#57> Some companies only hire specialists. If you’re Google, it makes little sense to hire a generalist, I think. Having been through a Google interview and offer process, this seems exactly backwards: Google selects heavily for generalists, so that they have people who can adapt to and integrate different technologies. (I'm sure they do hire specialists in various areas, but their interview process optimizes for genera…
Re: On Being a Generalist
#58Often we cherish specialists quoting "Jack of all trades, master of none". Curiously enough, the full version of the original has a twist: “A jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one." https://www.theodysseyonline.com/7-phrases-youve-been-misquo...
Indeed, and given the costs to become the very best, it's often a choice like this. Say you need to hire athletes with in experience swimming, running, and gymnastics to design some classes for your school. Would you rather hire: - 3 gold medal Olympians, each of whom have medaled in the 3 areas - 1 bronze medal Olympian who has single-handedly medaled in swimming, running, and gymnastics?