That would be my motivation, yes. It's a valid strategy.
I'm perceiving an increase in the amount of content coming out lately saying something like 'are you burned out with the job search in a field that we presented as being totally realistic and strongly encouraged you to commit to even if you didn't meet the criteria? Don't worry! Get a job elsewhere and donate to our movement instead.' That seems like a glossing over of the question of why so many resources are spent on accelerators/programs for 'helping you land a high impact career' given the current state of over-saturation. EA is supposed to be about the effective use of resources; it doesn't add up to me.
Good luck with your search and series anyway.
Of course! What someone brings to the role in the here and now should be about 90% of the consideration, with the remaining 10% for track record, only insofar as it demonstrates mission-alignment/commitment.
Nobody's entitled to a job just because they've been trying for a long time. I hope I haven't accidentally implied otherwise (gulp). I mention the maternity thing in response to your point about longer timeline --> more choosiness, which flies in the face of the traditional advice re: 'don't let there be a gap in your CV.'
I'll have a read shortly, thanks.
Hi Björn, I agree that intensive farming should be mitigated. I think every dollar in the movement should be spent on advancing cultivated meat as that's the most likely and effective solution.