The reality is, you have no idea whether something will be your dream job or not until you’re working there. Until you’ve been working there for a while, in fact.

I’d even go so far as to say that there’s no such thing as a dream job that you can truly recognize from the outside. Because as much as you think you might love doing that work for that company, it might turn out that the boss is a nightmare, or your coworkers are horrible, or the company makes you sign out for bathroom breaks and bring in a doctor’s note every time you have a cold, or you’re abused daily by clients, or your workload is so unreasonably high that you end up having panic attacks every morning.

Dream jobs do exist — when it’s work you love, at a company that treats employees well, working for a great manager, alongside coworkers who are competent and kind, or at least unobjectionable — but it’s dangerous to think something is your dream job before you’re really in a position to know. It can lead you to turn a blind eye to warning signs or to make decisions you wouldn’t make if you had all the facts.

—  askamanager’s advice piece on the value of pursuing “Dream Jobs”. It will also be helpful to read the comments section for a lot of other people’s experiences with their “dream jobs”. Seriously man, in an age where people seen to be obsessed with getting their “dream jobs”, some reality check on the whole concept is needed. 
Meanwhile, the hegemonic doctrine of difference, particularly in its vulgar form, falls prey to the most elementary Hegelian deconstruction. That the naive notion of presence must everywhere give way before the operation of difference is unobjectionable as far as it goes, but at the same time the poverty of the concept of Difference is readily apparent. Any concept as universal as Difference (which, as the very medium of human cognition, is virtually synonymous with Being) necessarily lacks all specificity; it is empty as to content. But without content there can be no difference, and the concept of Difference turns into its opposite, the monotony of the Same. This is not to say that Same and Different are really identical, which would be absurd, but that they share a certain ground; every mere difference exists by virtue of a field that stamps it with the character of the Same. This is easiest to see if one descends from the concept to its political application, where it is difference, not totality, that reduces the complexity of the world to the monotonous same, since the truly different (that is, what refuses to be seen as merely different) is excluded from the field of difference.
—  Nicholas Brown, Utopian Generations pp. 9-10.

celestialmechanic said: So you only espouse utilitarianism as long as the people involved aren’t described in too much detail? Is this like a reverse roko’s basilisk trolley problem?

it simplifies the calculations :P

but I don’t espouse utilitarianism, in most cases. or at least the unobjectionable parts of utilitarianism are vague to the point of uselessness (do more good for more people) and seem to break down when you attempt to specify them more precisely (eg. how to aggregate utility).