I not keen on telling everyone to learn every topic presented or else they 'fail'. He's telling people they have to reproduce his entire physics education exactly as he did which I don't think is suitable for people learning on their own.
If you're a self taught programmer you probably didn't learn by finding a university's syllabus and trying to replicate it. Trying to reproduce a university's syllabus seems to me an unreasonable goal and I worry that Hooft's list encourages people to gain a shallow understanding with little understanding.
My main take aways from my university education was that most modules truly wished to teach a new way of seeing things or teach skills in manipulating new objects. Analysis is a good example: simply going through theorems and proofs isn't the goal, it's to learn the skills needed to write them, understand the mathematical logic and gain intuition.
Another important thing is that science is both broad and deep, despite having common topics, and this list simply doesn't convey this. A learner is much better off using what they find interesting and needed as a guide. It's fine if you don't learn one particular topic or approach something in one particular way because all studying will teach transferable skills. I'd expect someone who's said taught to have more limited time compared to an undergraduate, so I think focusing is fine and potentially necessary.