> I followed my heart. The universe took care of me.
Survivorship bias. Other people have followed their hearts and the universe didn't take care of them, but their posts aren't likely to be posted on HN and upvoted to the front page.
Survivorship bias. Other people have followed their hearts and the universe didn't take care of them, but their posts aren't likely to be posted on HN and upvoted to the front page.
So ... he was in a hot job market, had a bad boss, a job where he didn't seem to be learning anything and a low salary. The course of action seems pretty clear to me. I don't think he needed "Jeff Bezos'" call to action to help him on this one. Quitting less than 2 months into a job does seem harsh (not sure if I'd do it) - if he waited a year or so, the tech boom would be over and then things would be different. So, perhaps he did get lucky with the timing.
I think it's also ok to just leave something like that off the resume. Especially after you've had some other job.
But if you're there for a substantial amount of time (say, 3 months or more) that's harder to explain, and I think you need to keep it on your resume for a lot longer.
Who cares about survivorship bias? If we don't try, we will not know which way our luck will fall. I'd rather thy and fail, and try and fail again and again than condemn myself to mediocrity on the basis of fear of failure.
The family of the person doing the trying?
I agree that it's better to be struggling to do something that you love than hating doing something you find boring ("I'd rather fight and die on my feet than live on my knees" or some such.) but you're also asking people around you to make a sacrifice.
As for family, it's true that there will always be people who don't have an appetite for risk. However, I also think that if you build risk mitigation strategies into your family unit then the family can become a bit of a safety net, rather than something that drags everyone down. This may not be possible in all environments but I think it is often possible enough with a little creativity, that it can be done.
For example, when I am making money, my wife's income is strictly used to purchase luxuries, or saved. When I am not making money, that's a safety net. Similarly when she's not making money but I am we can live ok. But we can't do this without economizing in a lot of areas and being aware of risk.
Leaving was recognition that the universe was indifferent to the whole matter and I had best figure out how to take myself. I'm a lot closer to that then I ever would have been there. And I've wasted a lot less time on anxiety and resentment over things I couldn't control or understand.
I cringed at the "universe took care of me" bit because I find that those who are most vulnerable to hardship or uncertainty tend to have this take on life. The author made an educated decision. The universe didn't even know the decision was being made.
Other people quit jobs they hated, got worse jobs. Quit those, perhaps worse or perhaps better. But eventually they found a job they liked. And they stayed there.
Good for him. It's a good story.
And, in anticipation of the standard reply on this, we cannot assume such people don't also have MBAs or PhDs in Social sciences. The cards just don't fall right every time. To paraphrase another HN discussionf from a few days back, a series of fortunate accidents allow certain people to become wildly (or at least comfortably) successful. The same chain of accidents, playing out differently for others, draw them in the other direction.
If there is a second, standard reply to this idea, it usually has to do with inherited ability (or innate talent) versus disease. So we should also explicitly not assume the people I'm describing have any such disabilities. Those would be additional forces, but plently of able, coherent people never nail a full-on life-hack, in the long-term.