I don't get the fascination with "Twitter", nor "social networking". There's no value added to the user, who gives up his privacy.

Every start-up success story I've heard was based on the founders having a solid but modest pile of liquid cash to tide them over until the first or second release. You can fire off great creative ideas all day every day for years and not get anywhere without the several thousand in cash it costs for patents, let alone product development.

I've seen a few pitches. When I'd get burned out at the office, I'd take the lap-top to the local coffee shop and continue the work there, and there'd be somebody pitching once every 10 days or so. The Gateses would show up on occasion, and I'd nod but was unimpressed as the OP noted; the old mystical magical hippie who, back in his day, used to hang out with Warhol and make movies of Hendrix, but liked the energy of the coffee shop, was more interesting. The son of the owner took over and soon destroyed the environment and the finances.

My impression of working at a conglomerate was different. Start-ups seem insanely frenetic and unrealistic, and, yes, insanely risky. But a big firm that's organized as many small, dynamic, creative hot-beds seems the best of all possible worlds.

As to being deliberate about your career, you touch on the key and then blab about the trivial. I got my first programming job just hanging around talking with other software developers. But after that, having and keeping in touch with a competent head-hunter was golden. Unfortunately, even great head-hunters retire. Collecting attaboys and being a goto guy, and getting promotions and compensation increases don't always come together. All the deliberation in the world can't do much to change that, especially when, as today, the STEM job markets have been so dysfunctional and glutted. You can't just leave a bad situation and have any probability you'll be able to land one that's even as good.