I'm an amateur too and yes, personally, I think one should definitely "hop around" between authors before engaging more deeply with one of them. Or else be prepared for a rude awakening once you finally managed to work through one author (any author) and the next one just completely destroys their core premises in a few sentences. Yes, this will totally happen with Kant.
universal ethical principle stating that one should always respect the humanity in others, and that one should only act in accordance with rules that could hold for everyone.
That's an incomplete description. Kants real categorical imperative claims we should always act in such a way, so that we can, at the same time, wish for the principles of our actions to become universal law. For example Kant says it's always wrong to lie, no matter the context, because if everyone lied, no one would understand each other and lying would become pointless. So if a murderer asks you were you hid their next innocent victim, you are compelled to answer truthfully.
A dialectical critique of Hegelians against Kants categorical imperative lists many examples where it leads to absurd conclusions. For example is it ethical to give to the poor in order to reduce poverty? Not if you follow the categorical imperative, because if that became universal law, poverty would be eliminated and charity would be pointless. So, strictly speaking, you can not act in this way and at the same time rationally wish for your action to become universal law. In the same way, the categorical imperative can be seen to fail to address any material contradiction on a society wide scale.
I'm not saying Kant isn't worthwhile(although it almost does seem as if he made his writing hard to understand on purpose). Any philosopher can be criticized and many still have a lot to offer us. It just helps to know what you're getting into.
For a general overview and if you like podcasts, you could listen to "history of philosophy without any gaps" with Professor Peter Adamson. The main series is about philosophy in Europe and the Islamic world (which includes Jewish philosophy). It's engaging and funny and starts with the Pre-Socratics and over 450 episodes later is still going in the Renaissance. There are also spin-off podcasts for African, Chinese and Indian philosophy.
Studying history, you'll get a good understanding of why people call the entirety of philosophy merely "Footnotes to Plato". Also it helps in understanding any philosophical text to know what context philosophers react to (for example Kant reacted to Hume, Hegel reacted to Kant, there is no consensus on who had the better arguments). You also definitely go away from the podcast with a sense of "history isn't over".
Studying history helps understanding how contemporary philosophy isn't "better" or "worse" than philosophy at other times in history. People have always been smart and always had complex ideas. And who knows if philosophy of our time will later be remembered as an important contribution. Another important lesson from studying the history of philosophy is that it's easy to attack any philosophical system, but hard to build one. You can very quickly go from "wow, this makes a lot of sense" to "this is completely absurd" and still gain a lot from engaging with the material.
For a good sense of how well a particular philosophy holds up against it's critics, I like reading the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy as well as articles linked in the sources.
No, it's never been able to compete on the market in terms of cost per kWh without massive amounts of government money. Just try building a nuclear power plant. Without this funding, no bank would give you credit, no insurance would insure you or any bank stupid enough to finance you. And alternatives are only getting cheaper, while trying to deal with the enormous risks continues to highten the costs of nuclear.
And that's not even talking about the enormous hidden costs off loaded on exploited people who have to mine the uranium. Or on future generations who are forced to take responsibility for nuclear waste in the only realistic way: actively guarding ever more and ever larger high security buildings full of poison (yes, the toxicity is just as problematic as the radioactivity) and hoping really hard against probability, that no natural or human made disaster will ever strike in basically all eternity.