How do people become seriously good with tech? Did they get exposure from a young age? Mentorship from someone who actually wanted to teach them?Like the people that figure out how to decompile games or repack old games for new operating systems. People who build software/hardware that can interface with old consoles, shit like that?I've always loved games and computers but I grew up in a religious, anti science household. I finished community college pre-stem courses and I code in C++, but I can't help feel like a retard compared to real technical knowledge
>>107697843Experience is just having an interest + working on that interest + time. Nobody starts off by being an expert, and you accumulate knowledge about stuff over time.
>>107697843It was possible to find answers to those sorts of questions by using search engines once upon a time.
>>107697896My name is Pajeet and I'm very passionate about full stack development.
>>107697843>I've always loved games and computers but I grew up in a religious, anti science householdyou too, huh?
>>107697922Jeets mostly feign passion though, because they think that gives them status (similarly they also feign competence).
>>107697984yes, it gives them that "izzat" right?
>>107697998Thought izzat was a muslim thing, but feigning competence and interest gets them job offers in the west. Indian culture is all about exaggerating achievements, which is why you get those wild bollywood movies.
>>107697843You improve at whatever you do all the time. How many days have you gone without constructing sentences in English? See what I mean?
>>107697843According to leftists, male-oriented propaganda caused you to be interested in tech.
being able to get an IT job by being the guy who can plug in monitorsanybody born before 1990 lived life on tutorial difficulty
>>107697843“really good” is subjective, but I’ve hit a point in my career where I easily dwarf 99% of /g/ in yearly income through technical problem solving. it really boils down to a lifelong passion in math and computers and a mastery of the fundamentals in both. getting into a top 4 cs uni also helps since being surrounded by professors and students that aren’t retarded has a huge impact on how much you learn, especially since these are your formative years. passion, work ethic, etc… are all important, but there is a black pill element to it. if you truly want to be “great”, you do also need the raw talent. a good proxy is how well you did vs your peers in mathematics in grade school. everything technical is downstream from math so if you sucked at it when you were a kid, you’re probably never gonna be truly great. barring that, it really boils down to mastering the fundamentals. forget the meme framework of the week and ignore all sloptubers that shit out surface level content and shill vpns. start by reading and mastering all of the classic textbooks. that alone will already keep you busy for a long time
>>107698295What do you believe talent is? I don't believe that's actually real, "luck" is a more accurate term. Not everyone is lucky enough to grow up with those who challenge them in all the right ways, I wasn't.
>>107697843So when I was 10 years old (36 now) I got my first hand-me-down computer. I dicked around on it for a while and me and the mom were cleaning out the shed one day and I came across a Turbo Pascal programming book of hers. I booted up the included floppy disk and that's all she wrote. Also The Matrix came out around that time and that just sent me off into a life-long security obsession and now I'm a cissp sec analyst. Anyway I don't know how to answer your question without providing my own timeline. It was natural and I can only assume it has to be natural
>>107698350even in an "equitable" environment where all students are "challenged in all the right ways", some students will pick up concepts much more rapidly than others -- and consistently so. if you're unironically denying the existence of "natural talent", you probably fall in the the "others" group.
>>107698054Let’s leave politics out of /g/, eh?
>>107698377Some missing pieces to my story:a free Ubuntu CD at my local computer repair shop at about 13 years old - been using Linux since then and use it at workGetting real lucky at my first IT security job. I wrote my own job description and got hired on. I was super hung over during my CISSP exam. Laughed for passing when I couldn't even eat breakfast that morning without gagging
>>107698394So talent is really just odds, or luck.Perhaps the teacher presents concepts in a way that is similar to the student's parents, allowing them to grasp it faster. Remember that no one gets to choose their parents.Perhaps what they were exposed to (which you also don't get to choose) subconsciously assisted in their learning abilities.Perhaps they have friends that challenge them. Maybe they want to impress their friends and because of that, work harder because of the desire to be better than them.I would say environment and upbringing is more important, but who is to say for sure? The nature vs nurture debate has gone on forever and because no one truly understands what consciousness "is" or what exactly affects learning, no one can say one is objectively better than the other.And then you can just repeat this for all stages of life. People who form the right friends early in life usually don't start hanging out with the wrong people later in it.
>>107698425I guess the point is I've lived and breathed this shit since I was a child and you're probably in it for the money, so you'll never compete. Does that register, OP?
>>107697843Unironically install arch or gentoo, and try to rice it as well. You'll learn more about Linux from that than what 99% of tech workers know.
>>107698433>The nature vs nurture debate has gone on foreverit's because both play a role. nobody's denying the role of nurture, but nature (in other words, raw IQ, especially PIQ) absolutely plays an important role and it's not even up for debate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3deCR2iqVsc. some researchers won't say it outright but even the more left-leaning ones will use deflective language like "let's focus on the fact that everyone can improve in math" when the topic comes up.>So talent is really just odds, or luck.depends on how you define "luck". technically you don't choose your genetic IQ ceiling since, as you said, you don't chose your parents, so by some definition, sure, you can consider natural talent part of "luck".again, the question OP asked was how do people become "seriously good" with tech. as vaguely worded as it was, it's clear he wasn't asking how people become "decent" or even "fluent". anyone can become fluent with hard work and the correct learning approach. very few will get to the top echelons. those that do have everything working in their favor, including a high genetic IQ ceiling.
>>107698571also before anyone says "nurture influences IQ", yes, no shit, lead paint, poor nutrition, etc will fuck your brain up. that's why I'm referring to the genetic component as an "IQ ceiling". your genetics determine your "IQ ceiling", but your environment will determine how close to that ceiling you'll actually hit. if your drunken mom bashes you on the head with a beer bottle every time you cry, no genetics will save you from becoming more of a potato.
>>107697843I had no mentors. I only had the internet and a will. My parents were downright tech unfriendly.
>>107697843autism and unrestricted computer/internet from a young age
>>107698647>>107698654This. My parents refused to get me a console because they were cheapskates but we had a family PC. I googled everything constantly and a year later, I was torrenting .ISOs and emulating Gamecube, which was great because I didn't actually have one.Just keep doing things and over time you'll eventually pick stuff up.
