I agree with the author's broader point about being more open to alternative paths into UNIX/hackery/etc. However, I'm not sure that I agree entirely with this

I agree with the author's broader point about being more open to alternative paths into UNIX/hackery/etc. However, I'm not sure that I agree entirely with this statement at the end: > I’m pretty confident that someone who practices programming strictly as a hobby, less than ten hours a week, will eventually get just as good at it as one of these "fledgling hackers" who doesn’t do anything else with their spare time. I'm not sure. Maybe, if the fledgling hacker isn't able to use their time effectively and the hobbyist is. But that assumes that very thing the author discussed in the beginning: the hobbyist has some prior foundational experience that allows them to be more effective with their time than the fledgling. In my experience if you want to excel in any discipline, you have to spend some time at some point deeply-focused on it. If we assume the path to mastery is linear, 10 hrs/week for 10 years (~5000 hours) leaves less time for mastery than 60 hrs/week for 2 years (~6000 hours). In my experience mastery is not linear and makes this calculus even worse for the casual learner. Learnings compound and not all hours of practice are equal in efficacy. The more experience practitioner is likely to be getting more out of the time that they spend. I do believe, emphatically, in the value of consistent effort over time. I've spent a few years picking up piano, but its 4 hrs/week. My goal with piano is to "be good in 10 years." But still, this to me highlights the gap between casual progress and dedicated effort. One of the main reasons I feel like I'm able to actually make progress with only 4 hr/week is because I have the prior experience of reaching a fairly high level of proficiency playing bass after 20+ years. There were times earlier in my musical study where I spent 30+hrs/week with the bass and built a foundation of musical knowledge and discipline that allows me to be more effective with a lesser time investment on piano now. Even with that prior foundation I don't expect that with 10 years of 4 hrs/week effort that I will be comparable in skill or knowledge to a professional pianist. I think, based on my experience, that immersing yourself in a subject and making it a major pursuit in your life, taking up a large portion of your waking hours, is qualitatively different than the same amount of time invested over a longer horizon. You make connections faster when the study is top-of-mind. You notice patterns and build up intuitions that you miss when it's more spread out. The path of learning is extremely non-linear, in my experience. Slow and steady is effective, but let's not kid ourselves. If it is sustained, fast and steady is more effective.