Agree with basically everything you said - I think we're just looking at this from different perspectives. The point of clarification I'd make (which, perhaps I could have made clearer in the video!) is that Learning For the Sake of Doing requires that your goal is actually the thing you want. While you could *technically* consider typing 'hulk' into Dall-E 2 a method of "being able to draw the hulk," I think we both know that that's not *really* what you meant - you know deep down inside that your goal's going to require actually putting pencil to paper. And your SpaceX argument is definitely on-point. The thing with learning the minimum required to achieve your goal is that "achieve" is defined by you. While many people might hear the word *minimum* with rocket design and assume the rocket will just barely make it off the ground, "minimum" doesn't stipulate any quality of the finished product. Your goal could be "learn the minimum required to build a rapidly reusable rocket that is 99.99999999% reliable." Do that, and you'll outpace the entire industry. What's my point here? The whole idea behind this is that I (and I think lots of other people...) can tend to bias towards spending too much time in the fundamentals research phase. Since you certainly don't need to know *literally all* fundamentals to build a quality reusable rocket, how do you know when to stop studying and start doing? As the video said, (assuming you agree with this statement) the goal isn't to know the most - it's to do the most. This strategy of learning the *minimum* required for your goal (assuming your goal is up to your standards of quality) is merely meant to give people a framework that gets them to stop studying so they can move on to the thing they actually care about in the end: the *doing* phase. In my experience, that line is not clear - especially for something novel. While "you won't even know how to begin" is certainly an issue, the larger issue - in my eyes - is *you won't even know how to end.* If you instead take it step-by-step as you're going along and only learn exactly what you need to achieve the next thing, then this is a way toeing that line. The best way to find out *exactly* what you need to achieve what you're trying to is to simply try it and see where your knowledge falls short. This will be more accurate than trying to predict this out at the beginning. I totally agree that learning those deeper fundamentals (data structures, algorithms, color theory, etc.) could help you come up with a novel idea. If we were omniscient beings we could perfectly navigate this and only learn what we will end up actually using. We're not, so we have to allocate *some* time to Learning for the Sake of Learning (as discussed in the video). But this video is aimed at people like me - people who are just a little *too* caught up in making sure we've covered all possible bases with what we need to know before jumping in. This tendency to bias towards learning more than you need up front is a perfect recipe for never really ending up doing anything, but rather just *thinking* about doing things. It's a balance, and the more precise and accurate you make your goals, the clearer it will be where this line is. The chief rocket engineer in the SpaceX example suffered from an imprecise goal: if you're going to put minimal studying into achieving a reusable rocket, you'll get the minimum reliability reusable rocket. But if you stipulate in your goal that it needs to be X% reliable, then you'll learn only enough to do that and waste no time learning anything extra. *That's* the main concept I was tryna get across - sort of paradoxical that the most *idealized* advice (learn only what you'll ever actually end up using) can end up being the best guide for knowing - practically - when to stop. Given the advice "learn all the fundamentals, and then go out and do it," I actually find that less actionable than "learn the minimum required to achieve your goals." But I really loved your argument here and think my point could have been made a little clearer in the video. As I said at the top, I think we both have the same fundamental idea in our heads, we're just coming at it from different direction. Let me know if I've misinterpreted your argument.

🔥🙌

Great things on the horizon 😉

Yes, I only have one vault, though sometimes I use multiple themes (as evident from the previous frame in the video). I don't use inline title - just #h1 since Obsidian didn't have inline title when I started using it, so I've just carried through this habit.

@@Peepnbrick thanks!

fixed. thanks!