3 ms·
> it's not admirable--it's sad It's not just sad. It's often bullshit. I don't believe for one second when people say "I worked 120-hour weeks for 6 months!"
by khazhoux 4y ago
> it's not admirable--it's sad
It's not just sad. It's often bullshit.
I don't believe for one second when people say "I worked 120-hour weeks for 6 months!" Simple math tells you this is a farce. Even 100-hour weeks is not sustainable, unless people want to claim they literally did nothing but wake-commute-work-lunch-work-commute-dinner-sleep for weeks on end. Not buying it.
- TillE 4y agoOh yeah this is absolutely true. I've voluntarily done ~100-hour weeks, and even in my 20s it destroyed me, I needed multiple weeks to recover from even short periods of intense "crunch". The idea that you're living at the office and actually being productive is just laughable. It is absolutely not helpful except in brief emergency situations.
- blagie 4y agoI've done 80-hour work weeks in blocks ranging from 6 weeks to 6 months. I did literally nothing but wake-work-sleep-wake-work-sleep, with time for food and similar necessities. I didn't have many blocks like that, but those were some of the most productive (and personally fulfilling) times of my life. They made my career. Those allowed me to level up each time in a very significant way. I also had long breaks after each of those -- they set me up to cruise for a while. I did that before kids. I couldn't do that after kids. After kids, though, I have a depth of knowledge that makes me applicable for other types of productivity and work.