3 ms·
Did you read the original comment? It rather explicitly states if you have people taking care of things you get more time. I really don't see the point of your
by throw2016 9y ago
Did you read the original comment? It rather explicitly states if you have people taking care of things you get more time. I really don't see the point of your continuous misrepresentation.
The point was about privilege and the average person. Obviously you will have more time if you have people taking care of things for you or are Usain Bolt with food like yourself, but this does not apply to the average person.
If they had the same privilege as Musk they too can work 14 hours a day so it's not noteworthy in any particular way.
- jsjohnst 9y agoYes, I did read the original comment. 95% of the comment was made up numbers with one sentence thrown in for good measure: > The ability to work uninterrupted is a privilege. Yes, it is a privilege, but that doesn't negate that the rest of the post is completely false conjecture by one person. > That's a total of 14 hours that can't be negotiated If it can't be negotiated, then why do many people do it, especially ones who are more well off financially? > 10 hours for work. Given the brain will not operate at that stretch you need distraction, so web, tv, books, games, movies - another 2-3 hours. So 7-8 hours seems to the the maximum any human being can work. I'm not sure why I am even bothering to reply to that, but if you think that's true then honestly we aren't having an intelligent debate and so my time is being wasted. > So anything beyond 10-12 hours [working] seems physically impossible Same as above.