honestly, I've done this several times. if you have the money to go half a year without trouble, and your career has been good so far, you can probably do fine. It is extremely hard to juggle working while interviewing. I've only done it a couple times, but it really meant waking up at 5:00 in the morning so I could get interviews done before my day started. if you're honest about why you left a job, it doesn't seem like people really care. also you have to stay active in work while you were not employed. have a project you want to work on, or a thing you want to learn, now is the time. People love to see that
ballistic routing was my strategy. ballistic routing is the technique of setting a goal post that feels unrealistic, moving as quickly as you can towards it, but accepting any distractions that come along. once you get bored of your distraction adopt your old or a new goalpost.
I originally got into programming because of an interest in computer animations. using computers more got me interested in security. when I got to school my new goalpost was cryptography.
My first job out of school was developing a password key manager. The interest in cryptography and experience in security landed me a job at a company that did that work, but my position was in machine learning and programming languages. Because of some of the ML applications I got to see the new goal was to get into environmental studies, graduate school allowed me to explore computational models for light pollution and cetacean vocalizations. I did this concurrently as a data engineer for a neuro imaging lab
datapipelines and interest in cetaceans give me a brief run as a web developer for animal tracking site. This cumulated in pushing me towards data science. now I work in machine learning for computer security.
yes, but without a universal health care in my country I do not see it as realistic. Too many people in my family have had health problems. There is no sufficient safety net to support innovation in America.
The idea that even healthcare being passed could be thrown out as soon as there is a leadership change, means that this would need to sustain itself through a racing change prior to me seeing it as realistic.
I could see finishing out a political term, if these laws were passed sufficiently early
there is no good part of silicon valley. the capital incentive makes poison on its environment. People who do good work have to sacrifice an income, this means that there is no financial incentive to do good work.
tech industry always serves to first benefit the biggest spenders, and consequently the greatest polluters. there have been efforts to quickly move from big spenders to the general public, but most carry with them The individualistic perspective that tech breeds.
as an example, if you really want to do good by the environment, it is significantly lower cost and significantly better for the environment to set up an efficient bus system and make all busing free for major cities, but the tech response has been individualized electric cars.
things like US military not having to report how much they use in fossil fuels, mean that any measurements we get are always going to be from our observed effects, rather than from our known outputs.
if you don't know where pollutants are coming from, then the likelihood you'll be able to change anything is very low. also if you actually don't know how waste is being treated, you have no measurement of cost. The reason why we have attached pull tabs on the tops of cans, is that soda companies used to be charged for litter associated with their product. that innovation significantly reduced litter, but many of those restrictions and monitors have been lifted. there's no incentive for a company to produce recyclable goods. we also can observe that recycling as has been taught to behave throughout the United States is simply not the case. there is effectively no plastics recycling industry, it has been a sham for decades.
societies will have to start to make intentional economic decisions towards usafrican principles and communally shared resources, rather than planned obsolescence to make a dent. this is probably the most important social change that could be made for the environment that could be made.
Even with all of that most metrics look at atmospheric effects, which is very important for understanding temperature. there is, however, a deep need for more studying of topsoil and deep ocean surveys.
solutions to climate change problems have to be developed with an ecological mindset, and will require significant social change. this is not about individual responsibility. the top polluters vastly outweigh the combined bottom polluters in waste.
there are a lot of people who are trying to solve this problem with data, but That's not a new strategy. many of the national Labs have climate change models. Lawrence Livermore national Labs does fantastic research with great data from a United States perspective, and have been for 30 years. I posit that the problem is not enough great minds on data.
https://m.youtube.com/@thepop-upchannel4919