3 ms·

>if this is a serious post, Why would this be a joke? >My two cents are, unless we're talking about very high aptitude in a domain (say the top ~0.1-1%), most

>if this is a serious post, Why would this be a joke? >My two cents are, unless we're talking about very high aptitude in a domain (say the top ~0.1-1%), most is reachable through deliberate effort for most people. Yes, that amount of aptitude is where I want to be. Who wouldn't? Furthermore, do you have evidence for the claim that anything below top 1% is achievable by anyone? >What stands out from the example of the postdoc is that the first thing she did was and took online Berkeley courses on data structures and fundamentals. If you learn fundamentals before you hack away you can safe yourself a lot of time, because a lot of leetcode problems is just identifying and applying CS theory. I had a degree in computer science. I had more of an education than she did. I also looked at lectures of similar kinds myself. >To get better being frustrated and sinking hours per day into something is not a healthy or good thing. Focusing on weaknesses, having a plan on how to improve, studying fundamentals even if it isn't fun or rewarding and keeping schedule is how people get better. Why do you assume I didn't do any of this during my 5 years?

Barrin92 6y ago
>Furthermore, do you have evidence for the claim that anything below top 1% is achievable by anyone? there's no hard evidence for these sort of things. But to put some context on this. In chess getting to the top 1% in the US means you have a 2000 rating. That's what people generally consider to be a 'strong amateur'. I've seen people from all walks of life get to that level. Aged over 50, janitors, businessmen, academics, there's no magic to reaching that competence. Take running. A three hour marathon already puts you into the top 5%, that's not that crazy either, and many amateur runners achieve it with rigorous training. >Why do you assume I didn't do any of this during my 5 years? because not knowing anything else about you I just think that's simply the most likely explanation. In another post you mentioned that your goal is to get a FAANG job and that you don't have good social skills. Software developers don't just get hired based on leetcode performance, so your performance might not even be bad at all, you may simply have to work on your other skills that aren't even coding related.

Barrin92 6y ago

>Furthermore, do you have evidence for the claim that anything below top 1% is achievable by anyone? there's no hard evidence for these sort of things. But to put some context on this. In chess getting to the top 1% in the US means you have a 2000 rating. That's what people generally consider to be a 'strong amateur'. I've seen people from all walks of life get to that level. Aged over 50, janitors, businessmen, academics, there's no magic to reaching that competence. Take running. A three hour marathon already puts you into the top 5%, that's not that crazy either, and many amateur runners achieve it with rigorous training. >Why do you assume I didn't do any of this during my 5 years? because not knowing anything else about you I just think that's simply the most likely explanation. In another post you mentioned that your goal is to get a FAANG job and that you don't have good social skills. Software developers don't just get hired based on leetcode performance, so your performance might not even be bad at all, you may simply have to work on your other skills that aren't even coding related.