another critique of the slow track.
My Macq managers Kevin A and Stephen Keith are fairly successful old-timers. Such an individual would hold a job for 5-10 years, grow in know-how, effectiveness (influence,,,). Once a few years they move up the rank. In their eyes, a job hopper or contractor like me is hopelessly left on the slow track — rolling stone gathers no moss.
I would indeed have felt that way if I had not gained the advantages of burn rate + passive incomes. No less instrumental are my hidden advantages like
- relatively carefree hands-on dev job, in my comfort zone
- frugal wife
- SG citizenship
- stable property in HDB
- modest goal of an average college for my kids
- See also G5 personal advantages: Revealed over15Y
A common cognitive/perception mistake is missing the silent majority of old timers who don’t climb up. See also …
As explained in 3rd effect@volatile introduced@java5 ,
- writing a volatile variable is like exiting a synchronized block, flushing all temporary writes to main memory;
- reading a volatile variable is like entering a synchronized block, reloading all cached shared mutables from main memory.
http://tutorials.jenkov.com/java-concurrency/volatile.html has more details.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9169232/java-volatile-and-side-effects also addresses “other writes“.
I have a real self-esteem problem as I tend to belittle my theoretical and low-level technical strength. CHENG, Shi was the first to point out “你就是比别人强”.
- eg: my grasp of middle-school physics was #1 strongest across my entire school (a top Beijing middle school) but I often told myself that math was more valuable and more important
- eg: my core-java and c++ knowledge (QQ++) is stronger than most candidates (largely due to absorbency++) but i often say that project GTD is more relevant. Actually, to a technical expert, knowledge is more important than GTD.
- eg: I gave my dad an illustration — medical professor vs GP. The Professor has more knowledge but GP is more productive at treating “common” cases. Who is a more trusted expert?
- How about pure algo? I’m rated “A-” stronger than most, but pure algo has far lower practical value than low-level or theoretical knowledge. Well, this skill is highly sought-after by many world-leading employers.
- Q: Do you dismiss pure algo expertise as worthless?
- How about quant expertise? Most of the math has limited and questionable practical value, though the quants are smart individuals.
Nowadays I routinely trivialize my academic strength/trec relative to my sister’s professional success. To be fair, I should say my success was more admirable if measured against an objective standard.
Q: do you feel any IQ-measured intelligence is overvalued?
Q: do you feel anything intellectual (including everything theoretical) is overvalued?
Q: do you feel entire engineering education is too theoretical and overvalued? This system has evolved for a century in all successful nations.
The merit-based immigration process focus on expertise. Teaching positions require expertise. When laymen know you are a professional they expect you to have expertise. What kind of knowledge? Not GTD but published body of jargon and “bookish” knowledge based on verifiable facts.