This is exactly why I switched to computer science after finishing my biology BSc.
I don't get nightmares about analytic chemistry anymore, but the level of self-loathing you get from doing labs that never work out for reasons that defy understanding make the annoyance of debugging code seem quaint almost.
(I should really say "it used to", but now that I can run an LLM call locally and get a completely different response than the deployed version of a piece of software, with all other factors seemingly being equal...)
I too switched from biochem to CS: it was such a relief to work in a field where I felt that, as in math, you can get by remembering axioms and rules and derive the rest, without all the arcana of biology. (My mentor in biology bought me a copy of Barrow & Tipler as a parting gift, as if to say, CS and biology are not so different.) Today I’m not sure I still feel that way. Programming is more an empirical than logical discipline that ever before, as programs are too complex to be objects of pure reason; and the layers of stuff one needs to know keep growing in both directions, from SIMD to OAuth.
I’m so glad to come across this writer though. I was going to send them a note to tell them they have a real talent, until I noticed the long list of New Yorker and Atlantic publications, and thought: they already know. :)
I don't get nightmares about analytic chemistry anymore, but the level of self-loathing you get from doing labs that never work out for reasons that defy understanding make the annoyance of debugging code seem quaint almost.
(I should really say "it used to", but now that I can run an LLM call locally and get a completely different response than the deployed version of a piece of software, with all other factors seemingly being equal...)