• intellectual engagement with peers.
• reading and writing a lot.
• the open science movement.
• in-person conferences and collaborations: meeting brilliant people and learning about cool projects.
• financial stability (periodic income).
• flexible schedules.
• in principle, some level of autonomy for pursuing own projects.
• paid travel and accomodation.
• peer review: both as a reviewer and reviewee.
• "free" spaces for workshops, meetings and activities.
• participating in the noble pursuit of creating and disseminating knowledge.
• leverage for advancing projects with diverse collaborators.
• the move towards a "narrative CV" where a holistic appreciation of contributions (beyond papers) is encouraged.
• fun workshops.
• fun dissemination activities.
• teaching cool stuff.
• multiple simultaneous responsibilities: designing, coding, organising, facilitating, interviewing, analysing, writing, presenting...

• low environmental and collapse awareness, high levels of denial.
• low political involvement.
• low "real world impact" and high self-reference: it seems that almost nobody reads, uses or applies what we publish or do¹.
• not a lot of autonomy outside the goals of the projects and funders.
• group tendency to overwork / overcommit / burnout / cynicism.
• the inertia of closed science models.
• inequality regarding expected free labor vs venues (some)one has to pay to attend.
• big focus on "publications" (as in "papers") and their rankings for the purposes of research assessment (and not so much "for the advancement of science").
• riding the wave of technooptimism and "progress".
• not the best salary.
• strict hierarchies in the university system (+ within-university political fights).
• bureaucracy / administrative burdens to be able to do stuff.
• teaching stuff one doesn't like.
• multiple simultaneous responsibilities: designing, coding, organising, facilitating, interviewing, analysing, writing, presenting...

¹for "random fun stuff with no actual use" I'd rather be an artist!