ccwu's comments

As someone with a Bachelors in Biochemistry and Computer Science, my sense is that the frustration comes not from the lack of transferable skills per se, but that there is not a lot of self determination and opportunity.

The challenge with big bio science is that you need access to tremendous resources to do anything interesting. Labs are expensive, equipment is expensive so you need to get access through the gates before you can do anything. Once you are in a lab, you have to manage aligned agendas between your PI and yourself to move forward. Large bioscience is about resource acquisition. The same is probably true of high energy particle physicists. The lack of jobs and positions is a side effect that a lab just needs a lot of resources. Ecologist and other field biologists seem less miserable. You can do low cost field work as a field biologist.

Computing as another commented, in biostatistics allows a degree of able to do the work directly. And in that area costs are getting cheaper. As a computer person, I can do things without needing to get permission. Bio is still the most interesting thing, hey we've never engineered life, open question. But the age of gentleman biology is long gone.

There is a lot of good molecular bio to be done, but there are few opportunities due to exogenous factors. Half the effort is getting the opportunity and that is definitely miserable.

A nice summary. I was having drinks with a vc and he said the issues always remain organizational. Brooks saw that software is no different.

How about Chinese? Probably more useful.

But seriously, python is well regarded and with G App Engine as a possible hosting platform using it, you can also learn more about design for hosted infrastructure apps.

INTP

This is one of PG's more observant and better essays. I was just in Boulder, CO and I tried to figure out if I could move back there from Silicon Valley. Not sure.

One thing I think that PG missed is that some cities have a blend of ambitions that lean on each other. NYC differs from LA or the Bay Area in that it is a power center for many different fields (Finance, Arts, Literature, Media, Political (UN based there)) while the Bay Area is technology, LA is entertainment and Washington DC, political power. That mix leads to better eavesdropping. London is about the only other place where I get the mixed vibe. Cambridge is interesting in that MIT and Harvard shape different spectrums of thought leading to an almost NYC kind of diversity Whereas Stanford and Berkeley compete on the same spectrum of fields, but on different levels of social class.

I wonder if PG forwarded this to Joel Spolsky who is about creating a different kind of start up in a NYC mold instead of SV mold.

Because it will make you happier, if the cushy job is not making you happy that you are seriously thinking about leaving for a start up then you probably should. Note if the start up will put you in REAL poverty, not decreased living standard, but serious poverty or risk (i.e. lack of health insurance, something catastrophic happens).

Studies show that material gains beyond a certain point do make much difference in happiness. Note that diminished relative status can contribute to decline in happiness, so take the ego comment seriously too. You better have one if you go startup.