I am highly confident in my assessment that the personalities found on the typical R1 tenure track are exactly the sort of personalities I avoid hiring or working with at all costs. There are exceptions, but they prove the rule (and I can often poach them anyways).
I don't think I said anything about industry other than that it pays 3x-5x better than the TT, and I'm pretty darn confident that's true. I am clear-eyed about the issues in industry, but the personalities are much better.
I really do believe that the massive pay disparity between CS industry and CS academia is, in part, a "toxic personality that can't play well with others" tax. And I really do believe that you'd get more mentally/emotionally healthy people on the TT if it paid better.
Anyways, we can agree to disagree, because we agree on the solution in any case.
And what is that exactly out of curiosity?
I agree it's a rosy picture of industry, but IME most of the supposed "intellectual freedom" of academia is just a marketing pitch these days. You don't get there until you somehow make tenure, and even then if you're in a high cost field you need to be very high profile if you don't want to be forced to focus on the topics that award grant money. You're interested in narcolepsy? Too bad.
So I consider it a red flag when a PI immediately jumps to say that "yes salaries should be higher but" and then goes on to defend everything else about their current situation.
Like it is ridiculous the amount of self promotion one feels pressured to do on Twitter. Do you not see the problem with authors pushing their work on social media during a supposed double blind review period?
I don't disagree that there is often a lot of bitching without actionable suggestions. But I don't think the characterization in (1) was especially extreme and I don't see the suggestion to burn the whole system to the ground. Personally I think we need more diversity in how academic institutions operate, that doesn't mean that old institutions will disappear.