3 ms·

I don't believe the "out of breath" analogy quite holds, because being sleep deprived is not working at your brain's full potential, whereas running flat out pr

by sanj 19y ago

I don't believe the "out of breath" analogy quite holds, because being sleep deprived is not working at your brain's full potential, whereas running flat out probably is working at your lung's full potential. A better analogy might be playing while hurt. You're clearly not at your full potential, but you are making progress. But I'd argue that I'd rather have people on my team that aren't hurt: it is detrimental to performance in a similar way and acknowledges the commitment. And it is also usually a bad idea.

pg 19y ago
You're misunderstanding the metaphor. Working while tired is working at your full potential measured in what you can do in n hours (which is the case you usually face in a startup), not in what you can do per hour (which rarely matters).
- wanorris 19y ago
  I think it's valid up to a point. But the playing while injured metaphor has some parallels as well. Not only is this a badge of honor, but it's flatly expected of you once you get past a certain level of competition. This is generally good and right. However, past a certain level of injury, you're hurting both yourself and the team, and you're better off taking time to heal. My personal experience with sleep deprivation is that if I go too long and too hard, I am doing less work than if I had rested, even in absolute (and not per hour) terms. And DHH is 100% correct that as most people get tired, their solutions to problems get worse -- that's definitely true for me. I've tried various levels of sleep over the years, from a solid 8 hours a night to so little sleep that I would literally hallucinate during the day. For me, except in short (2-3 day) bursts, at least 6-7 hours of sleep a night is most effective for my ongoing productivity. Any less than that, and I would have gotten more done net if I had slept. Having said that, everyone is different, and if you're one of those people who can get 2 hours of sleep on an ongoing basis and still be highly productive, then cool.
- sanj 19y ago
  Actually, that's how I interpreted it, but I appreciate the clarification. But I still disagree. Anecdotally, I've found that coding for 6 hours a days gets more features implemented and bugs fixed than coding for 14 hours a day. The loss of mental acuity, clarity and creativity (again, this is for me, and anecdotal) is simply too high a price to pay.
  - pg 19y ago
    Anecdotally, I've found that coding for 6 hours a days gets more features implemented and bugs fixed than coding for 14 hours a day. Sure, in the long term. But when you have a big demo or a customer deadline coming up in 2 days, or a server crashing right now, it often pays to keep working past 6 hours.
    - sanj 19y ago
      Then the injury analogy still holds. I hold up the Schilling's bloody sock as Exhibit A: http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/6948862/ http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/6948862/
      - maw 19y ago
        Curt Schilling probably would have had problems in subsequent years had he pitched in the playoffs in 2004 or not.

by sanj 19y ago

pg 19y ago

You're misunderstanding the metaphor. Working while tired is working at your full potential measured in what you can do in n hours (which is the case you usually face in a startup), not in what you can do per hour (which rarely matters).

wanorris 19y ago
I think it's valid up to a point. But the playing while injured metaphor has some parallels as well. Not only is this a badge of honor, but it's flatly expected of you once you get past a certain level of competition. This is generally good and right. However, past a certain level of injury, you're hurting both yourself and the team, and you're better off taking time to heal. My personal experience with sleep deprivation is that if I go too long and too hard, I am doing less work than if I had rested, even in absolute (and not per hour) terms. And DHH is 100% correct that as most people get tired, their solutions to problems get worse -- that's definitely true for me. I've tried various levels of sleep over the years, from a solid 8 hours a night to so little sleep that I would literally hallucinate during the day. For me, except in short (2-3 day) bursts, at least 6-7 hours of sleep a night is most effective for my ongoing productivity. Any less than that, and I would have gotten more done net if I had slept. Having said that, everyone is different, and if you're one of those people who can get 2 hours of sleep on an ongoing basis and still be highly productive, then cool.
sanj 19y ago
Actually, that's how I interpreted it, but I appreciate the clarification. But I still disagree. Anecdotally, I've found that coding for 6 hours a days gets more features implemented and bugs fixed than coding for 14 hours a day. The loss of mental acuity, clarity and creativity (again, this is for me, and anecdotal) is simply too high a price to pay.
- pg 19y ago
  Anecdotally, I've found that coding for 6 hours a days gets more features implemented and bugs fixed than coding for 14 hours a day. Sure, in the long term. But when you have a big demo or a customer deadline coming up in 2 days, or a server crashing right now, it often pays to keep working past 6 hours.
  - sanj 19y ago
    Then the injury analogy still holds. I hold up the Schilling's bloody sock as Exhibit A: http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/6948862/ http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/6948862/
    - maw 19y ago
      Curt Schilling probably would have had problems in subsequent years had he pitched in the playoffs in 2004 or not.