3 ms·

I’ve found that 5 x 6 is roughly as productive for me as 5 x 8. 4x8 would be a drop, no doubt. I’ve got approximately 6 good hours per day, and then I’m just no

I’ve found that 5 x 6 is roughly as productive for me as 5 x 8. 4x8 would be a drop, no doubt. I’ve got approximately 6 good hours per day, and then I’m just not bothering. When I’m really in the flow, I can pull 10 hour days, but that’s fairly rare. Also, the long term impact on my happiness and well-being can take a while to measure.

nonethewiser 3y ago
I agree that the limiting factor is more about hours per day. Than days per week. So when working 8 hours instead of 6, there are 2 additional hours where you accomplish nothing? What are you doing? Also consider that even if you aren’t accomplishing anything it doesnt mean you’re getting less work done. Like I said I recognize there are diminishing returns. But it doesnt make sense to claim you’re actually getting less done.
- spiderice 3y ago
  You’re making some incorrect assumptions. Why do you find it impossible that you can be more productive with 5x6 than 5x8 because you’re more well rested? If you do 10 work units per hour at 5x6, and you do 6 work units per hour at 5x8 because you're worn out, then 5x6 is more productive. Your mistake is thinking that the first 6 hours of 5x6 and 5x8 are equally productive. Maybe that’s true. Maybe it isn’t. But to claim that it definitely is and anyone who thinks otherwise doesn’t have common sense is just silly. Edit: to further clarify, are you claiming that 5x10 is definitely more productive than 5x8? What about 5x16? What about 5x24. Or 7x24? Your confidence that you’re definitely right that 5x8 is better than 5x6 makes me wonder where you know the ideal line is and how you know that.
  - nonethewiser 3y ago
    Help make sense of this. If you work 6 hours a day and produce 10 work units, does working an additional 2 hours really just reduce your previous work output 40%?
    - christophilus 3y ago
      You have to look across a span of time. Day 1: 16 hours, 16 work units Day 300: 16 hours, 2 work units Burnout comes in when your pace is unsustainable. We are debating where the sweet spot is. Maybe it's 8 hours a day for you. Maybe it's 10 for Carmack. Maybe it's 6 for me. I don't know, but I doubt it's as obvious or linear as you seem to be thinking.

nonethewiser 3y ago

I agree that the limiting factor is more about hours per day. Than days per week. So when working 8 hours instead of 6, there are 2 additional hours where you accomplish nothing? What are you doing? Also consider that even if you aren’t accomplishing anything it doesnt mean you’re getting less work done. Like I said I recognize there are diminishing returns. But it doesnt make sense to claim you’re actually getting less done.

spiderice 3y ago
You’re making some incorrect assumptions. Why do you find it impossible that you can be more productive with 5x6 than 5x8 because you’re more well rested? If you do 10 work units per hour at 5x6, and you do 6 work units per hour at 5x8 because you're worn out, then 5x6 is more productive. Your mistake is thinking that the first 6 hours of 5x6 and 5x8 are equally productive. Maybe that’s true. Maybe it isn’t. But to claim that it definitely is and anyone who thinks otherwise doesn’t have common sense is just silly. Edit: to further clarify, are you claiming that 5x10 is definitely more productive than 5x8? What about 5x16? What about 5x24. Or 7x24? Your confidence that you’re definitely right that 5x8 is better than 5x6 makes me wonder where you know the ideal line is and how you know that.
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  Help make sense of this. If you work 6 hours a day and produce 10 work units, does working an additional 2 hours really just reduce your previous work output 40%?
  - christophilus 3y ago
    You have to look across a span of time. Day 1: 16 hours, 16 work units Day 300: 16 hours, 2 work units Burnout comes in when your pace is unsustainable. We are debating where the sweet spot is. Maybe it's 8 hours a day for you. Maybe it's 10 for Carmack. Maybe it's 6 for me. I don't know, but I doubt it's as obvious or linear as you seem to be thinking.