With that said, ethics aside, it does seem like a solid way to get practice.
The same principle applies here. The more interviews you do, the more comfortable you'll get, the better it'll go. And who knows, it might work out with one of the first companies you interview at!
The main pros & cons, apart from vanity, are IMO about security and robustness. With a custom domain you can change email providers, or you can recover from being locked out. (Just read any horror story about the day Google decided to freeze an email account). OTOH the custom domain name adds one more point of failure, either for delivery (if you have to handle SPF/DKIM yourself) or security - if someone gets into your registrar/NS account, they can re-route your emails. So you want to make double extra sure your accounts are locked down tightly.
In related news, my beta access to Mistral was just approved (I signed up this week).
A few (other) explanations:
* QoL is hard to be rational about, and is something that (I think) has to be experienced first-hand. European salaries are most probably lower for comparable jobs (they certainly are for high-wage workers) but pack more punch because of better social benefits and, depending on where you live, lower CoL. However it can be hard to convince yourself that 40 k€ in Spain affords you a better QoL than 80k$ in California unless you've experienced both. I mean, 40 is much less than 80, right?
* the "American Dream" is still a big part of the American (and global, for that matter) psyche. I would wager most Americans think the US is a place to emigrate to, not from. I don't know if many middle-class Americans would spontaneously envision emigrating to Europe. This is probably even more true for descendants of recent immigrants: if your family struggled to get to the US, why would you consider leaving?
* Ability to live abroad, in particular mastering a foreign language well enough to live and work in the country
* I'm not sure how well employability travels. You can work as a developer in just about any country but I think this is an exception. A medical diploma does not transfer well between countries (e.g. you probably need to start again as an intern, re-take exams, etc.), neither does a law diploma. More "middle class" jobs will have similar barriers to entry. E.g. if you're a plumber in the US and move to Europe you have to deal with different construction codes, installed base, local habits... Same thing if you're an auto mechanic: different car manufacturers, different regulations, etc.
Aside from the career boost, what I got out of my EMBA:
* exposure to new topics, some of which I loved (and use on a regular basis), others that I hated (and now I have better clarity on what I don't want to do)
* finance is high-school math with fancy words; it's really easy to pick up if you have a mind for numbers
* this holds for a lot of topics (e.g. strategy, operations management, etc): a little domain knowledge, good heuristics (both of which you learn during the MBA) + general logic and problem-solving skills (which you probably already have as an engineer) go a long way
* I built a good network and made a few great friends
1. Most people calling the helpdesk are in a very specific state of mind: they have a problem and they want it solved. They're not curious about where the problem comes from, they don't want to know how to avoid it next time, they don't want to learn a better way to do things. They have an interrupt that prevents them from resuming the rest of their day, and they want that interrupt dealt with as quickly as possible. For people in this frame of mind, trying to be helpful usually backfires. You solved their problem, that's what they called for, they're not interested in getting educated. These people will always look for the fastest way to solve their problem and the one which requires the least amount of cognitive activity on their part. Anything that makes the conversation longer than it needs to be or requires them to engage more brain cells is a downside.
2. It seems like there's a status issue as well. You mention that these users "operate beyond [your] abilities" so maybe a bit of inferiority complex on your part? In which case explaining how you know better than them could be a way for you to even the score, so to speak. But then this triggers its own opposite reaction, "I have a PhD so of course I can figure out how computers work if I put my mind to it, stop talking down to me". To which you respond, effectively, "having a big brain and knowing how things work are 2 different things, you may be book smart but I am street smart" and it escalates.
My advice, insofar as it makes any sense, is to let go of all this social context when you're in helpdesk duty. Take the call with the objective to help a human being get on with the rest of their day with as little fuss as possible. Accept that some will be grateful and say thank you, and others will be douchebags, because that's how human beings work. Trust to karma to reward the good ones and punish the douchebags. Accept that you can't teach someone who doesn't want to learn. Don't bring your ego into it, because winning technical arguments with someone shouldn't be how you measure your self-worth.
They claim that they plan on investing up to $50k in the first year, which was additional justification for a lower equity split. But again, this feels strange to me - they're basing current equity split off of projected funding? Is that weird? If it was just based off the current few thousand dollars that have been invested that would make sense to me. (But the few thousand dollar difference still wouldn't justify an equity difference so high)
This does bring up a good point though. The founder claims that they would probably be contributing a lot more cash than me, and thus taking on more risk. And on top of that, they don't want me to get entangled with voting rights on how to spend cash if I would not be the one contributing the most cash, thus, less equity. How do founders reconcile differences in co-founder funding early on? And especially after equity has already been distributed?
Idk.. this all seems so ridiculous to me. No? The company is currently worthless - difference in a few thousand dollars seem to pale in comparison to the execution abilities of creating a solid product. Of course, maybe my execution abilities suck, but thats what the 1 year cliff is for.
/rant
Anyways. I told them I'm out.
I applied for a CTO position out of curiosity, had a conversation with the CEO (now my cofounder) and hit it off. I was "lucky" to have worked with a so-so CEO previously so I knew exactly what soft skills and personality I wanted in a co-founder.