A contrarian here
I attended university at the turn of the millennium; I was a young child during the '80s and packed my teenage years entirely into the '90s.
My experience, shortened to the interesting bits: I received an obsolete micro from the classifieds somewhere in the early '90s; left to figure things out on my own as at that stage the computer had no magazines or commercial support I achieved some things I'm very proud of but was remarkably naive in other areas.
In the late '90s we got a PC and the Internet. So suddenly I had access to unending reams of documentation and properly technical people to discuss things with. My abilities took a huge leap forward. I progressed much faster than I probably would have if I'd continued in independent study or muddling through with a single book or two.
As a result, just as others above think the most educational environment was having limited choices and needing to figure everything out for themselves, I think the most educational environment was taking a bit of time to get the absolute fundamentals down then being exposed to the breadth of everything available. Probably people a decade younger than me that the best way to learn is to be dropped in immediately amongst the breadth.
It'll be interesting to see what the second article advocates but too many of the commenters seem to be confusing causation and correlation so as to jump from perceiving an experience to be common to suggesting that it's a good idea.