> this generalist thing is utter nonsense
By your own description, you sound like a generalist with ability to dive deep into the areas needed. You seem to refute the core premise of the article but your description says otherwise.
By your own description, you sound like a generalist with ability to dive deep into the areas needed. You seem to refute the core premise of the article but your description says otherwise.
It really isn't like that, you really have to be able to go deep, as you said. Yes, there is a part of it where you have to be flexible (I wouldn't call it general, because I think it sweeps too much under the rug), so as to go so deep into a topic, you pass this kind of "expert-level turing test" where, were you and a domain expert put in the same room, a reasonable person wouldn't be able to tell you apart, where the weaker version is "another expert wouldn't be able to tell you apart" or something like that..
> Specialists’ work is coordinated by a product manager, with hand-offs between the functions in a manner resembling the pin factory: “one person sources the data, another models it, a third implements it, a fourth measures it” and on and on.
If you're taking the time to learn the domain, source the data and clean it then you fit their definition of a generalist.
FWIIW I am a generalist DS type (arguably just generalist: database engines, blockchain, ML, DSLs, etc), but it's almost entirely because I'm easily bored. From an optimization of my paycheck and hours worked point of view, going deep in one area nets much larger paychecks and a nicer (aka fewer hours) lifestyle.