I think the article actually has some good points: > Both start-ups and research projects attempt to do something that has probably never been done before. In

I think the article actually has some good points: > Both start-ups and research projects attempt to do something that has probably never been done before. In both cases, you have to persevere despite ambiguity, uncertainty and risk. You take a big, amorphous goal, and you break it up into smaller, testable hypotheses to create clarity as you go. And in both you have to learn new skills quickly. Throughout graduate school, this happens in lab meetings, seminars, courses and research projects, and in industry you have to learn how to build products, do user testing, market effectively and sell compellingly. (And it might not work out even if you do everything right!) My perspective as someone that did a PhD in CompSci and then worked in startups (one very early, series A and Series B), I agree with that take. There was this moment during my PhD were I had no clue on what was next, and my supervisors advice limited to "think about it", which I also have found during my time in startup-land. Of course a lot of the things we do is mainly "gluing things", but part of the main premises of a PhD is "blame someone else" as you write an article and cite [] every other paper that previously said something you want to mention... so in a way it is a gluing of ideas. I don't think the author tried to say that both were the same in their objective, but more on the process and challenges that present in the endeavour.