I think this is sort of a false dichotomy, and potentially a defeatist take. There is an increasing body of evidence that any work done above 40hrs/wk for thoug

I think this is sort of a false dichotomy, and potentially a defeatist take. There is an increasing body of evidence that any work done above 40hrs/wk for thought work is only beneficial for a few weeks at a time. After which overtime is necessary just to maintain what would have otherwise taken only 40hrs. What this tells me is that it's essential to learn how to strategically work longer hours, knowing that the recovery time will reduce your hours by at least as much (personal experience is that 2x is actually more realistic to getting back to normal measurable output). I see it as no different than athletes who learn when to expend that extra energy in competition such that it doesn't leave them flagging the rest of the match. I also think you may be overestimating the amount of effort it takes to sort of tread water if necessary. I suspect it's more of a logarithmic decay function in terms of social relevance. I've come to think that the hardest part of staying socially relevant isn't the amount of effort it takes to stay on top, but to actually recognize when it's important to spend effort on some new trend, and when it's important to ignore other trends. I think for this it's even more important to take a step back and take time out to reflect rather than actively trying to work insane hours.