4 ms·

For this to work, you first have to get yourself into the mindset than when you are working, you're kicking ass. I'm having a lot of problems with this.

by Kuraj 9y ago

itamarst 9y ago
Other way around. If you work less hours, you end up becoming more productive because you value your time more and learn how to prioritize better. https://codewithoutrules.com/2016/11/10/work-life-balance-software-engineer/ https://codewithoutrules.com/2016/11/10/work-life-balance-so...
- bulatb 9y ago
  If your high-priority task takes N hours, and you only work for N-k hours, you won't finish your work. You can't just magically do more with less. Working longer is a proven way to finish work that takes more time. Prioritizing only lowers N, not k.
  - internetman55 9y ago
    That sounds like your manager's problem to me, but I got laid off recently so take that as you will (not even mad cause i copped a fat severance check and got admitted to a great graduate program, and the job was sort of subpar with poor management)
  - itamarst 9y ago
    That is true, but somewhat tautological. You're making the following assumptions: 1. There is only one way to solve the problem. Often there is more than one way, and the proposed way is just one of them, and not necessarily the fastest. 2. The whole task needs to be done by deadline. Often only part of it does. 3. The task actually needs to be done. Often it's not actually high priority. Etc..
    - bulatb 9y ago
      The assumptions I'm making are: 1. There exists, for many tasks, some indivisible, minimal unit of value created by work. If you need your car today, but your mechanic left an hour early with the engine disassembled, it doesn't matter that they finished 95% of the work. The value of that 95% to you is zero. 2. In practice, how your work is thought to be divided into value-units (by whoever is assigning it) matters more than than how you think it is, or how it optimally could be. 3. Whether the demands on you are self-imposed, or reasonable, or whatever else, not meeting them has consequences. It isn't tautological to say that, even after finding all the better ways to do it, there are things you have to do and there exists some minimum amount of time you need to do them (N). If you work k fewer hours than required, you won't finish work that takes N time. This is just an observation of a fact.
  - happybit 9y ago
    I work contract. I work 9-5 and I get as much done as I can. If that means missing a client deadline, it means missing a deadline. They should have planned ahead, and it’s simply not my problem. If that means losing a client, I’ll have another one tomorrow. I won’t, however, be able to repair damage to my personal life or relationships if I constantly allow my schedule to be dictated by clients - been there, done that, burned out, never again. I’m simply not desperate enough for money to work as a slave, and I’m not foolish enough to act as though I am.

For this to work, you first have to get yourself into the mindset than when you are working, you're kicking ass. I'm having a lot of problems with this.

by Kuraj 9y ago

For this to work, you first have to get yourself into the mindset than when you are working, you're kicking ass. I'm having a lot of problems with this.

itamarst 9y ago

Other way around. If you work less hours, you end up becoming more productive because you value your time more and learn how to prioritize better. https://codewithoutrules.com/2016/11/10/work-life-balance-software-engineer/ https://codewithoutrules.com/2016/11/10/work-life-balance-so...

bulatb 9y ago
If your high-priority task takes N hours, and you only work for N-k hours, you won't finish your work. You can't just magically do more with less. Working longer is a proven way to finish work that takes more time. Prioritizing only lowers N, not k.
- internetman55 9y ago
  That sounds like your manager's problem to me, but I got laid off recently so take that as you will (not even mad cause i copped a fat severance check and got admitted to a great graduate program, and the job was sort of subpar with poor management)
- itamarst 9y ago
  That is true, but somewhat tautological. You're making the following assumptions: 1. There is only one way to solve the problem. Often there is more than one way, and the proposed way is just one of them, and not necessarily the fastest. 2. The whole task needs to be done by deadline. Often only part of it does. 3. The task actually needs to be done. Often it's not actually high priority. Etc..
  - bulatb 9y ago
    The assumptions I'm making are: 1. There exists, for many tasks, some indivisible, minimal unit of value created by work. If you need your car today, but your mechanic left an hour early with the engine disassembled, it doesn't matter that they finished 95% of the work. The value of that 95% to you is zero. 2. In practice, how your work is thought to be divided into value-units (by whoever is assigning it) matters more than than how you think it is, or how it optimally could be. 3. Whether the demands on you are self-imposed, or reasonable, or whatever else, not meeting them has consequences. It isn't tautological to say that, even after finding all the better ways to do it, there are things you have to do and there exists some minimum amount of time you need to do them (N). If you work k fewer hours than required, you won't finish work that takes N time. This is just an observation of a fact.
- happybit 9y ago
  I work contract. I work 9-5 and I get as much done as I can. If that means missing a client deadline, it means missing a deadline. They should have planned ahead, and it’s simply not my problem. If that means losing a client, I’ll have another one tomorrow. I won’t, however, be able to repair damage to my personal life or relationships if I constantly allow my schedule to be dictated by clients - been there, done that, burned out, never again. I’m simply not desperate enough for money to work as a slave, and I’m not foolish enough to act as though I am.