4 ms·

I have tech talents that maybe a few thousand people in the world have, and research ability to move the needle (maybe even novel ideas in the field, if you ask

by NHQ 7y ago

I have tech talents that maybe a few thousand people in the world have, and research ability to move the needle (maybe even novel ideas in the field, if you ask me). I can't work in academia (no Ph.D), find capital (no connections), and the software job market is a crazy stupid PITA (no thanks). I know it's me, that I can have what I want if I really go for it, and that is what I do by living simply and continuing my work. But it would be swell if it was easier to be seen, at such a high level. I would gladly teach, if offered the role. Basically, it should made way-too-easy for obviously talented, experienced, people to find some kind of work in teaching or civic developments.

burntoutfire 7y ago
> obviously talented The only "obvious" proof of talent that will convince anyone is having impressive accomplishments in a given field. Do you have any?
- fuzzfactor 7y ago
  Exactly. A naturally unfair advantage at the type of research that involves experimentation and/or discovery is a characteristic that most PhD's do not actually have. Plenty still do, but most do not. But without a PhD you will need to work your way up to outperforming those with credentials by a factor of 10x to 20x. Forget working in academia, but you will be expected to hang with them and make progress that they can obviously recognize, without intimidation difficulties either way. It's doable, and can be quite rewarding in itself. If nothing else you could end up like it says in the article. You could have a thousand wonderful ideas just like everyone else, but you've got breakthroughs that could grow phenomenally where 99 percent of them would require capital. This doesn't make capital any more accessible to you than the average person on the street. If your breakthroughs are really good you should be able to make opportunity from the 1 percent that can be pursued without other people's money anyway, while using the resources already at hand. Like it says, you could be the best innovator in the world but without undue good fortune it is extemely unlikely that ANY of your efforts will ever be leveraged towards the masses regardless of how beneficial or not. In the hypothetical 99 to 1 scenario, IF you can implement the full 1 percent of your technical ability, then your odds are excellent by comparison since only 99 percent of your life's work will be lost. PhD's don't have as much opportunity as there was in the past either, everybody's got to work around it. And it's probably even more important to be careful against bad fortune, which is a LOT worse than a simple lack of good fortune.
  - burntoutfire 7y ago
    In most cases, successful inventors of the past didn't have access to capital either. It often took decades of relentless dedication for their ideas to come to life. Sometimes, they even straight up risked their lives (like doctors trying out new therapies on themselves). You could say that's unfair, but it kind of makes sense - this way, only people with a singular focus and huge drive make it to the other end - and it's precisely the kind of people who are most fit to be leading the progress anyway (i.e. it's better for everyone when people who get to do cancer research are obsessed about curing cancer and not just very smart, normal people).
    - fuzzfactor 7y ago
      Another advantage of strong individual focus is you can end up owning your own inventions rather than having them assigned away to some extent. Living off your own technology is not for everyone. Most innovation is not ground-breaking or is so marginal that it actually needs to be highly leveraged to achieve the benefits of scale. Without a large research group to support it is possible to get by on the lesser advances, and if momentum can be built from that it can allow the time and space to gravitate to more potentially impactful approaches compared to modern or established institutional trends. In many situations it can be a lot easier and less costly & time-consuming to invent another sure-fire energy-saving device for instance, than it would be to risk the resources seeking eminence. You can end up with an unfair advantage at the inventing itself compared to those who divert any effort away from the task, simply because you can not afford to take that kind of risk. You also have the unfair disadvantage relative to those who basically just toot their own horn, but everybody has that.
- NHQ 7y ago
  Depends what you call an accomplishment. I guess my fields are "web development", music, and deep learning. I've published over 100 open source modules and projects across the "full stack". I have "live-coded" dozens of musical compositions (mathy algo music). I haven't published any proofs or arxiv papers (yet), but I can both engineer data pipes and code deep learning models from scratch. That is to say, I'm a good programmer, I learned the math, grokked the principles, and can actively stay on top of the latest research and implementations. Who knows, maybe I have good ideas in this wide open field, too.
mch82 7y ago
Some good ways to start teaching are guest lectures, visiting classrooms on career day, creating workshops for local libraries, and participating in events at local universities. Publishing writing and video lessons on a personal website or YouTube can also help a lot.
codingdave 7y ago
It is easy to find teaching work. The educational system needs good teachers. And many districts even have programs to bring new teachers up to speed, without a degree in education. (Assuming you have a degree of some kind.) Likewise, the public sector would love to find talented people willing to do the tech work required, for the salaries they can afford. There are always opportunities to be found. If you aren't doing those things, it isn't due to lack of opportunity in our society.
- NHQ 7y ago
  You say easy, but I know it's not easy, and it's also not very rewarding the way they use you. I'm not a beginner to working for schools, cities, or the tech industry. If it was easy, they would look at my resume, check my references, grant me what i need to do the work, and then set me free to do it.

by NHQ 7y ago

burntoutfire 7y ago

> obviously talented The only "obvious" proof of talent that will convince anyone is having impressive accomplishments in a given field. Do you have any?

fuzzfactor 7y ago
Exactly. A naturally unfair advantage at the type of research that involves experimentation and/or discovery is a characteristic that most PhD's do not actually have. Plenty still do, but most do not. But without a PhD you will need to work your way up to outperforming those with credentials by a factor of 10x to 20x. Forget working in academia, but you will be expected to hang with them and make progress that they can obviously recognize, without intimidation difficulties either way. It's doable, and can be quite rewarding in itself. If nothing else you could end up like it says in the article. You could have a thousand wonderful ideas just like everyone else, but you've got breakthroughs that could grow phenomenally where 99 percent of them would require capital. This doesn't make capital any more accessible to you than the average person on the street. If your breakthroughs are really good you should be able to make opportunity from the 1 percent that can be pursued without other people's money anyway, while using the resources already at hand. Like it says, you could be the best innovator in the world but without undue good fortune it is extemely unlikely that ANY of your efforts will ever be leveraged towards the masses regardless of how beneficial or not. In the hypothetical 99 to 1 scenario, IF you can implement the full 1 percent of your technical ability, then your odds are excellent by comparison since only 99 percent of your life's work will be lost. PhD's don't have as much opportunity as there was in the past either, everybody's got to work around it. And it's probably even more important to be careful against bad fortune, which is a LOT worse than a simple lack of good fortune.
- burntoutfire 7y ago
  In most cases, successful inventors of the past didn't have access to capital either. It often took decades of relentless dedication for their ideas to come to life. Sometimes, they even straight up risked their lives (like doctors trying out new therapies on themselves). You could say that's unfair, but it kind of makes sense - this way, only people with a singular focus and huge drive make it to the other end - and it's precisely the kind of people who are most fit to be leading the progress anyway (i.e. it's better for everyone when people who get to do cancer research are obsessed about curing cancer and not just very smart, normal people).
  - fuzzfactor 7y ago
    Another advantage of strong individual focus is you can end up owning your own inventions rather than having them assigned away to some extent. Living off your own technology is not for everyone. Most innovation is not ground-breaking or is so marginal that it actually needs to be highly leveraged to achieve the benefits of scale. Without a large research group to support it is possible to get by on the lesser advances, and if momentum can be built from that it can allow the time and space to gravitate to more potentially impactful approaches compared to modern or established institutional trends. In many situations it can be a lot easier and less costly & time-consuming to invent another sure-fire energy-saving device for instance, than it would be to risk the resources seeking eminence. You can end up with an unfair advantage at the inventing itself compared to those who divert any effort away from the task, simply because you can not afford to take that kind of risk. You also have the unfair disadvantage relative to those who basically just toot their own horn, but everybody has that.
NHQ 7y ago
Depends what you call an accomplishment. I guess my fields are "web development", music, and deep learning. I've published over 100 open source modules and projects across the "full stack". I have "live-coded" dozens of musical compositions (mathy algo music). I haven't published any proofs or arxiv papers (yet), but I can both engineer data pipes and code deep learning models from scratch. That is to say, I'm a good programmer, I learned the math, grokked the principles, and can actively stay on top of the latest research and implementations. Who knows, maybe I have good ideas in this wide open field, too.

mch82 7y ago

Some good ways to start teaching are guest lectures, visiting classrooms on career day, creating workshops for local libraries, and participating in events at local universities. Publishing writing and video lessons on a personal website or YouTube can also help a lot.

codingdave 7y ago

It is easy to find teaching work. The educational system needs good teachers. And many districts even have programs to bring new teachers up to speed, without a degree in education. (Assuming you have a degree of some kind.) Likewise, the public sector would love to find talented people willing to do the tech work required, for the salaries they can afford. There are always opportunities to be found. If you aren't doing those things, it isn't due to lack of opportunity in our society.

NHQ 7y ago
You say easy, but I know it's not easy, and it's also not very rewarding the way they use you. I'm not a beginner to working for schools, cities, or the tech industry. If it was easy, they would look at my resume, check my references, grant me what i need to do the work, and then set me free to do it.