>>12757498>>12757529though I want to add that the whole "a mathematician or physicist can learn this in a few weekends" is pretty fucking dumb. There are two cases:
either he means PhD holders can pick up undergrad CS and CS theory in a couple of weekends. For math PhD's, if they have an experience with combinatorics, this is true, but it's also a meaningless statement because studying combinatorics, calculus, analysis, and algebra at the undergrad level or higher gets you the suite of common math in undergrad CS *anyway.* But it still doesn't really prepare you for doing advanced algorithms or randomized algos, where you have to complement the creativity to do good proof with the creativity to make constructive arguments and devise clever ways to do it quickly.
The more egregious claim is that the physicist can do this, which if anyone has gone to a quantum information conference, is very easy to verify as false lmao.
If they mean math and physics undergrads, then this is patently false both anecdotally and even at the interview level. Any *proper* treatment of CS at the undergrad level isn't so trivial as to be adopted by other fields instantly. Everyone's a badass until they encounter streaming algorithms and dimensionality reduction, or anything related to graphics processing.
>inb4 the meme man who "self studied all of MIT OCW in a couple of months"you mean the guy who "on the honor system" passed all the tests with like a 77+ average by "self assessing" and blitzing basic problems on the homework? The guy who, despite his apparent MIT CS education, just spends his career selling books about "ultraeducation" and not actually using CS or even his software experience?
