I know some (very bright) graduate students do get assistant professor positions at top universities right out of their PhDs; I think those are tenure-track?
My guess is that these are "named postdocs" ("[some name] Assistant Professor", e.g. https://www.mathjobs.org/jobs/jobs/14065 or https://www.mathjobs.org/jobs/jobs/15707 ). Despite their names, they're limited to 3 years and only get renewed in exceptional circumstances.
You would have to have the right connections, or publish papers that were undeniably brilliant. (ie. be a celebrity.)
It's true that, in general, there are far more graduating PhD students every year than tenure-track faculty positions. But I think "no career path" drastically overstates the difficulty. It's way easier than making it as a pro athlete, for example.
> A lot of assistant professors, etc. sleep in their cars.
Are you thinking of adjunct professors, who are not tenure-track? Assistant professors typically make at least 50k+, and in the more lucrative fields (computer science, business schools, biopharm I think) >100k is common.
> You would have to have the right connections, or publish papers that were undeniably brilliant. (ie. be a celebrity.)
You're correct that an average PhD student will probably not get any tenure-track faculty interviews, let alone offers. This is especially true in more resource-constrained fields like the humanities.
I always hear about it and topology. Makes me want to read a book on it...
I can recommend a book on topology though. Robert Ghrist’s book:
https://www.math.upenn.edu/~ghrist/notes.html
Do you like physics? If so maybe try John Baez’s book for more knot-centric inspiration:
https://www.amazon.com/GAUGE-FIELDS-KNOTS-GRAVITY-Everything...
In the 1980s, Vaughan Jones discovered the Jones polynomial, which is a property of knots which remarkably turned out to have deep connections to all sorts of things including quantum field theory! This led to 3 decades and counting of intense study into the relationship between knots and fundamental physics. I'd like to say more, but I'm knot really qualified to speak about the connections to other fields. So that's basically the tl;dr of why so many people care about knots!
Does this mean that the strings in string theory are knots?
In particular, every 3-manifold is the boundary of a 4-manifold obtained in a way that's reminiscent of knot traces from the article. You take a disjoint collection of knots in the boundary of a 4-ball, then glue in the 1-handles ("caps" in the article) along these knots, but with slight change: you glue in 1-handles with any framing whatsoever, not just the 0-framing like in knot traces (and actually using just +1-framing and -1-framing is sufficient). It's actually a remarkable fact in its own right that every 3-manifold bounds a 4-manifold; this is saying the 3-dimensional cobordism group is trivial. Other-dimensional cobordism groups are not trivial in general.
Every 3-manifold has a diagram, then, consisting of a multi-component knot (known as a link) with each component labeled by an integer (or a rational number if you are ok with "fake" surgeries). There is a whole thing called the Kirby calculus that gives a sufficient set of moves to go between any two such representations of a particular 3-manifold. An extension to this calculus went into Piccirillo's calculations with knot traces -- she cites the classic Gompf and Stipsicz for details.
One use of this representation of a 3-manifold is to construct Reshetikhin-Turaev invariants, which are sequences of numbers associated to a 3-manifold. This is related to the Jones polynomial, and these invariants satisfy a number of wonderful properties that together mean they form a topological quantum field theory (TQFT). I don't know the physics, but I'm under the impression you can interpret it as having something to do with quantum states of anyonic particles.
For books, you might look at Adams "The Knot Book" or Prasolov "Intuitive Topology" to get a substantial taste of knots and low-dimensional topology.
In lots of fields, including CS and different kinds of engineering, this is somewhat common. Some will defer the appointment a year and do a postdoc anyway because that provides time to prepare research problems before the tenure clock starts to tick.
In math and the sciences, you hear a lot more stories of multiple postdocs being required before you can be considered for a professorship. I don't have first hand experience in those domains, however.
It's certainly unusual for a grad student to move straight into a tenure-track position at a research university, although not so much at a primarily teaching-oriented institution.
If the point you're taking from it is "here's a cool breakthrough in knot theory and low dimensional topology," then her title is irrelevant. If the point is "this woman made a discovery so awesome that it was published in the Annals, and got her a tenure track position straight out of grad school," then it's quite relevant.
I've made that comment because the error made the article unbelievable to me, and probably made it unbelievable to other readers who are familiar with the current functioning of the academic job market in maths. I found it somewhat reassuring when I realized that the error was only a minor misunderstanding as opposed to the kind of fabulism I've gotten used from news media.