Yeah... I don't think you got my point at all (which may be down to how I made it). The author started with "I amaze people with how well I can learn", bridged

Yeah... I don't think you got my point at all (which may be down to how I made it). The author started with "I amaze people with how well I can learn", bridged with "here's my method", which could be reduced to the mixed-media version of the stereotypical programmer who "read one book about that once" (which drives experts crazy), and closed with "I think I've optimized this! Behold!" So it easily reads as hubris, possibly mixed in with some raw horsepower, with a dash of Dunning and Kruger giggling in the corner at invocation of their work in what is likely a demonstration of their work. So it's not the musing on a well-trodden topic that bugged me. It's the tone and subtextual (and, at times, overt) assertions... Two more things, one of them important-ish: 1. I haven't experienced diminishing returns on my time and effort. I learn much more quickly now than I did when I was a fresh-to-industry voracious hot-head, in large part because I've learned how I learn, a mechanism that doesn't map well to all (or, really, many) other learners. My scoffing at 1000X comes from having thought the same sort of thing 20 years ago and having been dead wrong at how much more ceiling there is. 2. I'm in no way well versed in metacognition, proving a different point: One needs merely know more than the others around at the time to seem like an expert, and slinging some language around can buy one a false sense of expertise, for others and oneself.