Well done but is this a guide to Computer Science or to Software Engineering? In a Guide to CS I expected to find information theory, computability, complexity, finite state automa, language grammars etc.
Anyway, the audience is
> Undergrad students just getting into programming
so it's naturally biased toward the engineering part of the subject.
Yes, my CS program of 40 years ago had 4 parts. Sorted by decreasing abstraction level:
Math, physics, statistics
Theoretical CS, the one in my original comment
OS, compilers, networking, computer vision, transmission codes
Computer languages and having to write actual programs, how transistors work up to logical gates, adders, CPUs and machine language
Of course the separations are not clear cut: we had relational algebra and SQL commands in the same course.
> 1 Foreword
> Are you getting into Computer Science, or thinking about it? Or maybe you’re in it already. This super-high-level guide is for you!
> I’m not going to talk about how to write code (much). I’ll I’m going to talk about in these roughly 40 pages is more about how to learn when you’re a nascent software developer.
Page 1
So the answer is "it's not a guide to computer science". It's like a guide talking about how to get better at mental calculation being titled "guide to learning mathematics", or a guide to language learning being titled "guide to learning linguistics".
I see it as "learning how to learn", not directly learning itself like a curriculum. It's more for those who want to build proper study habits.
Reading the chapter of AI seems to support that feeling. It was about tips on where to use it, where to not use it as a shortcut, how to be critical of any output, and some personal speculation.
What about operating systems, architecture, compilers, networking, and the like? I have seen people argue that computer science is the more theoretical side of things, but many university CS programs cover both systems and theory (or sometimes skew to one side).