throwmeaway_66

Misleading. The vast majority of professional scientists don't do any science as science is defined when compared to engineering and analytics (and technical work, loosely defined). For example, if I use a well-established mathematical or statistical model to predict the range of Chamois in the Alps under the hypothesis of +2 degree Celsius during summer, am I doing science? Am I doing engineering? Am I doing analytical work? You are certainly not drawing a straight line between my work and Max Planck's.

I don't see it mentioned in the comments so far, but one very enlightening book on crisis and crisis response is "Thinking through crisis", by Amy L. Fraher. Recommended.

Quite the contrary. I understand the feeling and the downvotes. If I read my comment as written by someone else, I'd have a strong, negative reaction. What? They don't care about my failures? Are you saying that feeling down was for nothing since I cannot keep a list of them or talking about them on Twitter? It's like when I am reading and listening to Snowflake's CEO Frank Slootman: I don't like hearing what he's saying, and that's because I would like to be the one writing what he writes. But I am not him and I am not like him (for now, at least).

I believe that considering one's strengths and weaknesses rationally and logically, examining (briefly!) things that did not work out and rejections are all necessary to improve and being aligned. But keeping a list of and sharing failures like a cake at a wedding is weak. It is weak in form, weak in substance, weak in positive expected consequences.

Modern times, which are tremendously better overall than the olden times, have brought along for some reason—and especially in the US (and the Anglo world more in general)—this idea of being vulnerable and weak as being virtuous. So you have one day the failures, one day the impostor syndrome, the following day "whatever." But I don't find any virtue in that.

Since I am neither US nor Anglo, I remember, still with goosebumps, when a colleague of mine in one of the top tech companies in the Silicon Valley said during a group meeting: "Let me share some of my failures." And he went on with a list of "failed" projects and actions of absolutely zero interest for anybody. I remember the feeling of antipathy toward what I interpreted as either manipulation (please, I am weak, be kind) or tremendously low confidence masquerading as openness to criticism. What I expect from people getting a ton of money and status is: this is what did not work, that's why (if we know why), that's what we should be next time (if we know what and how). I am also looking forward to your comments and opinions. That is strong. Not sob stories.

You wrote: "A teacher talking like that could be very harsh and damaging depending on the child" -- It is the opposite, since I am not saying that "failures" are wrong, bad, they should put you down. On the contrary, I am saying that anytime we stretch ourselves (and lamentably, sometimes even the goal is easily reachable, because life is like a box of chocolate), we can miss, get rejected, lose. As it is inevitably part of the life of the achiever—and I hope (and work towards it) all my students will be achievers in some aspects of their lives—those "failures" (getting rejected by a romantic interest, a college, a company, etc.) should be rapidly and unequivocally forgotten. I mean, can you imagine keeping a list of all the men and women who rejected you? I am already feeling the testosterone dropping like a boulder in the ocean.

I was rejected by at least 50 high-level jobs for which I felt qualified. But the problem is that for those high-level jobs, other people felt equally qualified; maybe those candidates were better or had different competencies; maybe the company wanted someone better looking or of different ethnicity. Let's try to get some material for future endeavors and then move on. That's life for achievers.

Anecdote, yes. Read what Floyd Mayweather said in the criminally underrated "Winners", by Alastair Campbell (there is a reason why the book is not called either "Failures" or "Losers"): "The key quality for a winning mindset is believing in your ability to win. From a young professional in boxing, I believed that I would end up being a great fighter and throughout the years I have done everything necessary to get there. If you believe you can do it, then everything else falls into place.". I don't see the impostor syndrome and I don't see the list of rejections.

This is a very good comment. The fetishization of "failure" is a quite recent phenomenon that like many other communication workflows of the modern time has the implicit or explicit goals of making someone understood, commiserated, seen as naturally strong or "yes, I cried, but look how much stronger I am". A total waste of energy that to my eyes looks weak and entitled. Like when you read on, say, Twitter "my biology professor told me I had no chances of finishing high school, but now I have a PhD in molecular biology" - assuming it is true (and I many times doubt it is the whole story), are you really holding a grudge against a nobody in your life who said some words 15 years ago?

And that's why I use "failure" in quotes here and I never use the word in my life, except in some very specific contexts (e.g., machine failure). Anybody with ambitions in their lives gets rejected, dismissed and have things that don't work even if they cry in High Valyrian. Forget, move on, live large, not small.

"It's not totally clear though that the benefits couldn't be had without living abroad by a sufficiently imaginative person with the correct literary diet etc." -

I see observations like this one as being totally off (and I may have been guilty of having slightly similar, although way more nuanced, views years ago). Can someone playing volleyball and being sufficiently imaginative understand/feel playing football (the European one)? From a theoretical point of view, they may have a sorta intellectual understanding of it. Both sports involve a ball, they are both team sports, there is a referee etc. But until you do it, you have no real understanding of the differences in the practice of the sports. You don't get, in the sense that you don't feel, the positions, the dynamics, the different energetic systems that are taxed.

And it is the same for traveling as described here. Sure, you can have a sorta understanding of Cuba, the mix of poverty and ambition, the political ideas that motivated the revolution and the quite different reality of day-to-day living. Sounds like Detroit, does not it? Maybe. Or you may think, getting back to my previous example, that you don't need to go to Brazil to experience playing football, you can just go to a park in SF, play a pick-up game, and get the same football experience as you would get in Brazil. Intuitively and logically, the answer is no, you cannot. Because it is not just the action, it is the action in a particular context.

When I was in Cuba years ago, I understood much better than I could have imagined, through a mix of observation and participation, the dynamics emerging from the interaction between top-down politics and local (black) markets. I understood much better (through observation!) how romantic relationship develops when people are looking for a way out and have developed quite ingenious ways of tricking "whales". Would have been possible to get the same understanding in my hometown or in the town I have been living in for more than 15 years? I don't think so.

I went to Argentina for some time. I got to know better how different cultures (Italian, Spanish, Native) may get mixed together, but still maintain visible and distinguishable cultural roots. And now I can see the mix and the roots in other situations and in other contexts.

Experiencing different cultures made my life incredibly (with respect to my previous perspective) more profound, interesting, and adventurous.

I have not seen cited in the comment section my favorite Fellini's movie: "La Strada". Anthony Quinn at the end of the movie shook me in ways that only Marcello Mastroianni (by the way, someone give me a call when they find a modern movie start with one third of Mastroianni's charming ways: there won't be any need for notifications on) was able to do in "La Notte". Fellini is very Italian in a sometimes decadent, sometimes lustful way. A great director, but not Italy's best (that's Michelangelo Antonioni).

Certainly the FAANG-er needs to be in a senior role. To have a less stressful job, you need to look for senior- IC work, not management. Coming from management would be ok, but mostly companies I am talking about are looking for technical guidance or, more likely, reassurance. Publishing is helpful only if in the very specific area they are interested about.

As to how to find those positions, my recommendation would be to look for (1) high-revenue, big companies (they have the money and they have the space), (2) going through some sort of transformation (moving to the cloud, opening a new business area), and (3) need prestige, both internally and externally.

You can find those jobs in job ads, but you need to look at the ad written most of the time by a semi-clueless recruiter through the lens of points (1-3) above.

All very good points. However, if you do (1) (Look for opportunities at work), you don't have the time and energy for (2) and (3) with the regularity needed for making serious advances. At that point, you have a well-paid, non-stressful, truly full-time job. I would skip (1) and keep mostly (3) (well, that's what I do, more than advice. A pat on my shoulder, if you will). They are not paying you more, the more you do, the more troubles, stress, and annoyances you call in your direction, and when the tide turns, it is not that they are looking at some code review you did or improved documentation you wrote to keep you onboard.

As I like to say: there is no second life, the only one that was build was virtual and "failed".

There are plenty of high-revenue companies looking for people with prestigious backgrounds in a non-explicitly-called-that-way advisory role. It is not difficult to find jobs like those in general, but IMO most FAANG people lack the finesse needed to understand how to position themselves and understand what other people want, which, most of the time, are not the coding skills.

Panic attacks are brutal and getting employees to the point of having panic attacks is part of what is wrong in the tech world. And it happens, in big corps, because some people want to advance at the expense of others.

That's a good point and that's the drop of fear climbing making his way up to my brain. But I interview around, I got some offers that I have declined so far and I do some work, just a few hours a week.

You wrote: "Compensation for a job is about more than money. It's about where you end up as a person when the job is over.". It sounds good in theory, but in practice? Should I switch job, maybe/likely accepting less money and more stress in the coal train now because when the luxury train stops I will be in a better place (I am exaggerating for conversation purposes)? I have my doubts. This is specific to my situation and I don't want to explain too much (and that's why I use a throwaway account), but outside of the US that would sound bizarre. Switching from a cushy well-payed job to a demanding, paying-less job because in a few months/years it will be over? Yes, maybe I will get rusty here and there, but I can move to Tulum for 3 months and get ready for interviews, no?

EDIT: typo

I am definitely going to ignore Nick Huber. The "ignore SV" message is fine, especially if one's goal is to make money without attaching any "I will change the world" slogan to the job or company. And as I see it, that's the goal for the vast majority of SV people and for almost all outside of the tech world (plenty of exceptions that sum to < 1%).

But I am deeply skeptical, and annoyed, by the social-media "this is what you should do in life and business" broadcasters. This Nick Huber in particular is a fairly young person and if there is one thing that one learns when getting older is that there is a time and place for, say, qualities and trait that are to be shown to be world. And wisdom in young people and juvenile energy in old people are equally misplaced, often annoying, and sometimes ridiculous.

Now, it is also a matter of personality. As someone currently using a throwaway account, who has a PhD, academic, industry, and, I dare to say, life experience, I am still very reluctant to give advice to people when I know the specifics of the situation and the personality and history of those involved. I'd say out of prudence, and out of an understanding on how advice can be out of place, misinterpreted or just be wrong. What's going through the mind of 30-year old guys who want to give life lessons and advice on what to do in life (if it was tactical it'd be different, like let me tell you the mistakes I made when using paypal) to vast anonymous audiences? Is it just theater or they are delusional?

EDIT: typo

This is something that was unknown to me until a few years ago and I believe it's unknown to many in the tech industry. I make a close to Google-level salary in my position (say, 85% of it) in a tech company and I barely do any work (or better, I do some work for some hours a week). Little accountability, zero stress. And when I say "I barely do any work", I mean that when I hear start-up people ridiculing the typical Google senior-and-up IC who works 30-35 hours a week with weekends off, I say to myself: that's crazy, what would they think of me working (barely) 1/3 of those hours? Would I be the village idiot?

There is always some drops fear trying to find a way up my limbic system whispering to me that one day this will be over. One day, I will have to work for real again and I will have to pass tough interviews and have new, possibly demanding bosses. But this has been going for more than 4 splendid years, very long-termism tend to make one's life pretty dull, and my dream is to open a bicycle shop anyway.

As a famous ad campaign used to suggest: "Think different".