Agreed and that is a really good, but simple, point that I didn't realize as clearly before: there is no real alternative to the academia vs. industry dichotomy. What is needed might be a third option that allows for exploration without the pressures of profits or publications.
The traditional 3rd option was the patronage by a rich benefactor. The modern version is patreon. It's imperfect but seems to work pretty well for some.
Patreon is still dependent on the creator caring about what their audience wants, what the market wants, etc. This is a distinctly "populist" approach, which does have its downsides: specifically if there is important work that doesn't have a wide audience, or takes years to get any results.
The kicker is it's not really a dichotomy either. Academia and
industry have gotten closer together, colluding to decide what
research is funded and what is silently dropped, what is taught and
what never makes it onto the curriculum. This is even framed as a
good thing by governments who talk of academic-industry "alignment"
and how the academy "serves" industry. It's a way to get public money
for training that is a subsidy to commercial interests.
"Objective" higher education and research designed to shape industry
by genuine innovation is as rare as rocking-horse shit - mainly in
niche areas of physics or biotech that don't have any commercial
application yet.. but might one day.
