4 ms·
Honestly, for people who work more than 40 hours a week, how many of them are actually working more than 40 hours a week? Sometimes it feels like half my day i
by PakG1 14y ago
Honestly, for people who work more than 40 hours a week, how many of them are actually working more than 40 hours a week? Sometimes it feels like half my day is spent reading HN and the like. If I could focus much more, I'm sure I wouldn't need to spend more than 40 hours a week to get my stuff done.
- Pkeod 14y agoSomeone I know all they do is draw/paint until their hand hurts every day. It's all work related for them. Yes... some people do work for real long hours and are not wasting most of their time. I think it's more the people who are not doing work chasing rewards but doing the work because they genuinely love it. Use https://www.rescuetime.com/ https://www.rescuetime.com/ and you can track your time spent working and easily block distractions so you can focus.
- jiggy2011 14y agoYes, the worst thing about HN is that it's work related enough that you can sort of justify counting checking it as "work", indeed I've read things in HN comments and articles that have been very useful to my work. On the flipside, I'm sure in practise it is a net time waster.
- Shivetya 14y agohaving grown up on a farm, forty hours came and went usually mid week. In the business world its not the hours I work that wear on me, its the non productive hours during that do. I guess the difference between the farm and business is that the former doesn't have non productive work. It is amazing how much energy I lose in meetings or similar.
- capisce 14y agoWhile hunter-gatherers spend only 10-20 hours a week on obtaining food, how is farming an improvement on that? http://www.ditext.com/diamond/mistake.html http://www.ditext.com/diamond/mistake.html
- MoOmer 14y agoSurplus, profit.
- nanidin 14y agoFarmers these days tend to grow a lot more than what is needed to self-sustain or to sustain a small village/tribe.
- michaelochurch 14y agoIt's not about quality of life. It's about fitness, in the evolutionary sense. Agricultural lifestyles support an order of magnitude more people per unit land, and therefore are more fit, even if they're "worse" in subjective terms. Also, the "mistake" didn't happen immediately. It's not like hunter-gatherer nomads immediately decided, "yep, we're doing this farming thing" and started domesticating crops and animals. It happened gradually, over thousands of years, with various intermediate shades where a group would do some of both. Over time, human societies got to a point where abandoning agriculture would be impossible, while hunting and foraging became more discretionary.
- juan_juarez 14y agoA farmer working a 40 (60... 70... 80...) hour week can produce enough food to feed hundreds of people, freeing them up to do other things. If you've ever played Civilization, agriculture is a prerequisite to doing any sort of technological development.
- flyinRyan 14y ago>If you've ever played Civilization, agriculture is a prerequisite to doing any sort of technological development. What on earth do you think this proves?
- snowwrestler 14y agoHunting and gathering does not scale beyond small population sizes.
- orangethirty 14y agoId say 75% is programming or programming related. The other is dealing with clients or meetings. I'm very productive.