i am currently working on a paper in this field, focusing on the capitalisation of expertise (analogue to marx) in the dynamics of cultural industry (adorno, horkheimer). it integrates the theories of piketty and luhmann. it is rather theoretical, with a focus on the european theories (instead of adorno you could theoretically also reference chomsky). is this something you would be interested in? i can share the link of course
Be careful, barely mentioning Marx, Chomsky or Picketty is a thoughtcrime in the new US. Many will shut themselves down to not have to engage with what you are saying.
Here are my 2¢:
Leverage platforms that offer mock technical interviews (e.g., Pramp, Interviewing.io, probably there are others too). This approach lets you simulate the interview experience in a risk-free environment, getting you accustomed to the format and the pressure. It’s crucial to receive feedback, and these platforms pair you with industry professionals who can provide just that. This method is effective because it targets your interview skills directly, allows for rapid iteration based on feedback, and builds your confidence in a more controlled setting than actual interviews.
Aside from just technical skills, these mock interviews can help you articulate your thought process clearly, which is often as important as the solutions themselves in ML roles. Remember, it’s not just about getting the right answer, but also showing how you approach problems.
A side note based on a pattern I've observed so far: candidates who practice like this tend to perform better not just in technical assessments but also in explaining their past projects and teamwork experiences, which are equally critical parts of the interview process.
Hope this helps. Dive in, get that feedback, and refine your approach. Good luck!
There are also plenty of virtual groups around that offers p2p interviews (each side interviews another).
These might be better for initial warmup as the only cost is an extra hour of your time (but it also allows you to experience the interview from the interviewer's perspective).
I would like to support this observation. Obviously, they generated some language of their own, with lots of implications and references. Once you start reading it, it becomes a rabbit hole (back in the days my entry point was Adorno and Horkheimer). Words might be familiar, but their meaning is different. There was a reason to study, and the trend to render science accessible to laypeople was not yet born. Maybe even not wanted, to quote the ideas behind the concept of cultural industrial complex.
I would like to third this as well. Software developers are incredibly familiar with the concept of a field that contains a lot of jargon and that you can't have meaningful conversations about certain things until you've learned some of it: that's also software engineering!
Just because these folks are writing for people with a different background than the one that you have doesn't mean it's nonsense, it means you have yet to engage with enough of the field to understand what's going on. Everyone starts there!
