3 ms·

Generalizations galore on both sides? There are probably as many 40hr Devs that just want to phone it in as there are effective ones. It's possible youve learne

Generalizations galore on both sides? There are probably as many 40hr Devs that just want to phone it in as there are effective ones. It's possible youve learned to weed out the former but they do exist. Similarly I'm probably one of those Workaholics, but I make an active effort not to waste time. However I do work with good effective 40hr devs and I try to make sure that we are all on the same velocity. The remaining time I spend on pet projects for sure, but I do hope they are not a waste of time for someone, be it my personal growth or my company.

watwut 7y ago
90 hour a week means that the person is either not sleeping enough. Sleep deprivation means you cant be performant fully. Or the person did not had a single free day in weeks while working 12 hours a day. There are the people who do stupid decision just out of being tired. Just about the only way I have seen people work this much and not be overly tired drag was when significant bulk of time was spent socializing and playing around. Otherwise said, it was not actually work, but it was clocked in as work. And at this point, there is enough evidence that crunch is productive for few weeks and then productivity fails.
- ramraj07 7y ago
  Not sure where these numbers come from. I come from acadrmia. The expectation (and for the most part, reality) for someone in track to become a successful tenured professor is to maintain 80 hr weeks for a couple of decades if not longer. My professors maintain this still, it's how they live now. They have kids, but they had them when they're in their 40s after getting tenure. And they are not working below optimal intellectual abilities. You would be surprised at what your mind can do if you want it to. I made the jump to tech from academia because while I was ready to do that insane work ethic I wasn't convinced that academia as it is today was worth it. Turns out I can't just switch off this style of working though, and hence I end up working harder than I should. I'm not wasting my time though. What I have observed though is when engineers who are in their twenties just Naturally go into an insane work ethic without mentoring on focus and time management typically waste their time. But it is possible to be 2-3x more efficient by increasing the hours you put in as long as you are smart about it. Many of the smartest people in the world do. Of course this should be a personal choice. 90 hours is a bit much though. 80 is probably the sustainable maximum for any normal human.
  - watwut 7y ago
    > 80 is probably the sustainable maximum for any normal human. Not according to research. I know that academia features long hours. I never heard of academia as an example of efficiency through. Game industry is another hours high occupation (and the studies about crunch are from there). Also, having kids after 40 is not exactly advisable for women. You are getting into risk category health vise. People who work 80 hours a week and have children simply have spouse who does all childcare related work and career sacrifice (if they had career).
    - ramraj07 7y ago
      This was a couple lab, both professors were intense, but yes once they had a kid the husband started working from home more. But that didn't mean he worked fewer hours. We would typically take turns being on phone with him till 10 pm every day. I'm not advocating it to anyone who hates this. I just want to say that I didn't mind it, I liked it as long as I was working on exciting things, and so did my professors and most other professors that I knew for that matter. My professors didn't have burnout or mental breakdowns, I didnt. Some of my labmates did though, and they quit. I do not condone how my professors did things, they were abusive for sure. But that was fairly independent of the work ethic if you ask me. Most biology labs that went on to produce Nobel laureates or path breaking vaccines are similar. Also please go revisit your literature on women having kids after 40. It's not nearly as bad as you might think it is.
  - jimbokun 7y ago
    > And they are not working below optimal intellectual abilities. How would you know?
    - ramraj07 7y ago
      It's possible they could have been more efficient, but given what seemed to be their upper ceiling of intellectual abilities they seemed to be quite close to it. Conjecture of course.
smt88 7y ago
> Similarly I'm probably one of those Workaholics I was too, from the age of 16 to about 26. Burnout doesn't always happen quickly. In my case, I was able to work 80-100 hrs/wk for months at a time. Eventually I realized that my one-dimensional life wasn't getting any more work done. Your brain needs to recharge, which can mean sleep, daydreaming, paying attention to the drone of exercise, socializing, watching TV, or any number of things.
- ramraj07 7y ago
  I replied above, but I think there are some distinctions - 80 is probably the barely acceptable sustainable max you can work in a week. More importantly it's not just working longer hours, extra hours need different mental management of that time to be effective, and I got those lessons from my professors during my PhD. Probably why I haven't burned out till now.

watwut 7y ago

90 hour a week means that the person is either not sleeping enough. Sleep deprivation means you cant be performant fully. Or the person did not had a single free day in weeks while working 12 hours a day. There are the people who do stupid decision just out of being tired. Just about the only way I have seen people work this much and not be overly tired drag was when significant bulk of time was spent socializing and playing around. Otherwise said, it was not actually work, but it was clocked in as work. And at this point, there is enough evidence that crunch is productive for few weeks and then productivity fails.

ramraj07 7y ago
Not sure where these numbers come from. I come from acadrmia. The expectation (and for the most part, reality) for someone in track to become a successful tenured professor is to maintain 80 hr weeks for a couple of decades if not longer. My professors maintain this still, it's how they live now. They have kids, but they had them when they're in their 40s after getting tenure. And they are not working below optimal intellectual abilities. You would be surprised at what your mind can do if you want it to. I made the jump to tech from academia because while I was ready to do that insane work ethic I wasn't convinced that academia as it is today was worth it. Turns out I can't just switch off this style of working though, and hence I end up working harder than I should. I'm not wasting my time though. What I have observed though is when engineers who are in their twenties just Naturally go into an insane work ethic without mentoring on focus and time management typically waste their time. But it is possible to be 2-3x more efficient by increasing the hours you put in as long as you are smart about it. Many of the smartest people in the world do. Of course this should be a personal choice. 90 hours is a bit much though. 80 is probably the sustainable maximum for any normal human.
- watwut 7y ago
  > 80 is probably the sustainable maximum for any normal human. Not according to research. I know that academia features long hours. I never heard of academia as an example of efficiency through. Game industry is another hours high occupation (and the studies about crunch are from there). Also, having kids after 40 is not exactly advisable for women. You are getting into risk category health vise. People who work 80 hours a week and have children simply have spouse who does all childcare related work and career sacrifice (if they had career).
  - ramraj07 7y ago
    This was a couple lab, both professors were intense, but yes once they had a kid the husband started working from home more. But that didn't mean he worked fewer hours. We would typically take turns being on phone with him till 10 pm every day. I'm not advocating it to anyone who hates this. I just want to say that I didn't mind it, I liked it as long as I was working on exciting things, and so did my professors and most other professors that I knew for that matter. My professors didn't have burnout or mental breakdowns, I didnt. Some of my labmates did though, and they quit. I do not condone how my professors did things, they were abusive for sure. But that was fairly independent of the work ethic if you ask me. Most biology labs that went on to produce Nobel laureates or path breaking vaccines are similar. Also please go revisit your literature on women having kids after 40. It's not nearly as bad as you might think it is.
- jimbokun 7y ago
  > And they are not working below optimal intellectual abilities. How would you know?
  - ramraj07 7y ago
    It's possible they could have been more efficient, but given what seemed to be their upper ceiling of intellectual abilities they seemed to be quite close to it. Conjecture of course.

smt88 7y ago

> Similarly I'm probably one of those Workaholics I was too, from the age of 16 to about 26. Burnout doesn't always happen quickly. In my case, I was able to work 80-100 hrs/wk for months at a time. Eventually I realized that my one-dimensional life wasn't getting any more work done. Your brain needs to recharge, which can mean sleep, daydreaming, paying attention to the drone of exercise, socializing, watching TV, or any number of things.

ramraj07 7y ago
I replied above, but I think there are some distinctions - 80 is probably the barely acceptable sustainable max you can work in a week. More importantly it's not just working longer hours, extra hours need different mental management of that time to be effective, and I got those lessons from my professors during my PhD. Probably why I haven't burned out till now.