QuitProgramming

I would also like to know how.

>Consider the following alternative scenario: instead of leetcode, what if you focused all of your efforts on finding ANY programming job?

Because I don't just want ANY programming job. In fact, that is the approach I took with my first job and hated it.

>You may not score a FAANG position, but you may make a decent living in your chosen profession. Sure, you may not get to use cutting edge methods or innovative libraries, but you'll help others with your coding ability, for instance, consider all the mom and pop websites out there that look terrible and perform terribly. Those sites are an opportunity for you or for me, less talented and gifted people, to provide value where the rock stars wouldn't deign to work.

I'm not interested in those opportunities. That's why I've been studying Leetcode as hard as I can, to get something better than my intellect deserves.

>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?

The talent that makes one good at coding challenges also makes one good at implementing real world solutions. That's why the biggest companies use Leetcode to test interviewees despite having huge resources to pick any other method that promises better predictability.

Not a joke at all. This is my life story.

>And you can get good enough to do things without getting genius level great, or even good at the level (or with the ease) of the person with the innate talent

Maybe. It depends on how much innate talent you do have. Talent isn't an on off switch. It's a spectrum. It's possible to have enough talent to be a genius, to be just below a genius, to be good enough, but also to not even be good enough to reach a minimal employable threshold. It depends on the person.

>The industry needs tens of millions of programmers, for all kinds of levels, not only innate-talent-software-gurus.

But who gets the best rewards?

Do those other jobs have the prestige, benefits and pay of Google though?

I want to make money to pursue other pursuits with financial security. I also like it decently and thought it was my best shot I had to make money.

I am trying to get a FAANG level job. People have always said if I keep trying it's within reach.

I have no credentialist upbringing.

There are other things that are limiting me. I have no network and bad social skills.

The ability to do Leetcode well when a reasonable amount of time is applied to it and doing all the things you mentioned are correlated. The only issue here is the guy, in your words "was stuck fairly early and gave up." He didn't see it worth his time. Many people share that attitude about Leetcode, but it doesn't mean it's not tapping into something that's important for the job (intelligence).

What you are saying would be kind of like someone saying "I knew an athlete who could do a mile in under 4 minutes, but one time he got on a bike, fell and then never cared to try biking again. Therefore, the ability to ride a bike has nothing to do with athleticism." Which is technically true, but misleading. It misses the key idea that the main factor is the person not taking the bike seriously as if he actually decided to take the time to learn how to ride a bike, it's virtually certain he would be better at it than 90% of people because the underlying traits that make one exceptional at running would also make one good at biking.

It also sounds this person had a good temperament and personality which worked in his favor. That wouldn't matter though if he didn't have the cognitive ability to never miss deadlines and correctly design out code in his head and on paper before writing it as you say.

Do they all pay well, have high prestige and amazing benefits?

I would like to add something I couldn't fit into the original post. A big part of why I think I got stuck trying so hard is because of the anecdotes programmers like to throw around. They'll tell a story about one guy they knew or a time in their life when they struggled. They do not take a quantifiable approach this. IQ is not talked about. The amount of time studying is not talked about. Whether they have won competitions in any intellectual field is not talked about. How quickly they are able to understand concepts and implement them of increasing complexity is not talked about. If it was did, I think people would be much more able to realize when someone is truly not talented and should quit and when someone still under the normal curve of struggling and it may pay off to persist.