Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Work Hard (2007)

terrytao.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 203 posts

Re: Work Hard (2007)

#171

Post by Proziam »

metafunctor wrote: post #161
dimitrios1 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to think like this too, but now-a-days, it's more like "What a luxury to be in a position where you get paid to untangle a 600 line bash script" That is, usually these few hard workers are typically the ones responsible for getting a company to profitability precisely because of their GSD attitude. Now that the company has some runway, the architecture and refactoring can proceed.

What perverted sense of luxury is this? There is no shortage of software jobs. There are plenty of opportunities to work with a relatively clean codebase, capable and experiences colleagues, unencumbered by the VC runway bullshit.

Every company begins somewhere. If you want new companies to make it, allowing for there to continue to be 'plenty of opportunities' in the future, then accepting that there are times when repairing the ~sins~ necessities of the past is reasonable.

Re: Work Hard (2007)

#172

Post by imtringued »

ZephyrBlu wrote: post #138
TameAntelope wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you need both to be the best in the world in a given field, but why is that a problem?

That is not a problem. The problem I see is touting the value of hard work to people who may not have the requisite IQ to go along with it for their desired outcome (Best in the world in their field, for example). You said, Additionally, I think the obsession over "intelligence" and "natural ability" is vastly overstated, in general" . I think it's actually understated in general. Telling people who don't have the me…

Wow, I expected broken money systems to twist people's minds but not to this extent.

Of course, in a broken money and work system there is a cutoff point for IQ at which corporations decide who to hire.

The inverse position is that money isn't wealth. It's work and the product of our work that is wealth. Therefore willingness to work should be proportionally rewarded with work. Of course, since corporations hire whole individuals no such thing happens. Instead, work that could have been allocated to two people fairly is allocated to one person.

Now employers have to think of hard to cheat measures to determine the person who the work will be allocated to. The IQ cutoff point is the result. The chosen one then gets to feel superior because he both has the intellectual, moral and financial upper hand while he simultaneously gets to chastise the lazy, stupid, poor hobo. It is so easy to rebrand this process as "personal responsibility".

Re: Work Hard (2007)

#173

Post by srean »

philosopher1234 wrote: post #102
srean wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When things eventually break, its possible that those customers and more would leave also because of that same code.

Anything is possible. Better to focus on what is likely. Did you stop using google over any of their outages? Most people didn't. These things matter, but people in software overstate them.

Depends on what's on the line.

Software for automatic trading, dosing radiotherapy, controller for moonshot etc will have different requirements on correctness than ordering of search results.

Ignoring these things can have people killed/ruined and they have.

Re: Work Hard (2007)

#174

Post by nonameiguess »

bserge wrote: post #31

On a related note, this always trickles down to low level managers who then proceed to tell it to the floor workers. Trying to motivate a cleaner, assembly operative, driver, cashier, warehouse operative, packer and other low level workers with it is like telling them to go fuck themselves. It sounds like bullshit. It is bullshit. No one fucking loves these jobs. There's nothing to aspire to. Working hard means just…

He is very specifically referring to putting in the work to achieve breakthroughs in graduate-level and higher mathematics here. No one in the that field is driving factory workers to actually produce the proof breakthroughs for them.

Re: Work Hard (2007)

#175

Post by b3kart »

hutzlibu wrote: post #166
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great point. I like to compare work capacity to exercise capacity. Too much exercise will actually harm your fitness rather than improve it. However, reasonable exertions, combined with appropriate rest, will improve your fitness over time. Like exercise capacity, one's ability to work hard can also be improved through practice. This doesn't mean pulling all-nighters and chugging caffeine to override the sleepiness,…

"However, if you set a goal to spend 3.5 hours in your code editor every day" I would be careful trying to set up such metrics for yourself. I can stare for hours at code and not getting anything done. Then away from the screen on a walk or sitting down with pen and paper I solve the problem and implement it in 15 min in code. My point is, I would focus on a tasklist. Clear things to do at once. (Or in parallel if th…

Yes, sounds very much the the ever-harmful “butts-in-chairs” style of management, or self-management in this case.

Re: Work Hard (2007)

#176

Post by blackbrokkoli »

hutzlibu wrote: post #166
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great point. I like to compare work capacity to exercise capacity. Too much exercise will actually harm your fitness rather than improve it. However, reasonable exertions, combined with appropriate rest, will improve your fitness over time. Like exercise capacity, one's ability to work hard can also be improved through practice. This doesn't mean pulling all-nighters and chugging caffeine to override the sleepiness,…

"However, if you set a goal to spend 3.5 hours in your code editor every day" I would be careful trying to set up such metrics for yourself. I can stare for hours at code and not getting anything done. Then away from the screen on a walk or sitting down with pen and paper I solve the problem and implement it in 15 min in code. My point is, I would focus on a tasklist. Clear things to do at once. (Or in parallel if th…

That however goes both ways.

Some days you will quickly burn through six tasks on your list because they turn out to domino or all be easy or something else. Sometimes, a single item will take three days even with honest effort and deep work.

If "tasks done" is your metrics, you will get just as burned here.

As with all long-term habit building, I think the key here is identity forming. Be convinced that you are a person that (for example) cares about exploring their field with side projects and then ask yourself: "What would this person do?"

If you believe yourself, you will then both fight through your tasklist or do X hours of honest works and find that the actual system does not even matter that much.

Re: Work Hard (2007)

#178

Post by davegauer »

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #77
TameAntelope wrote: post #24

I've held for a long time that you must know the rules quite well before you're "allowed" to break them, and I think this reinforces my opinion on that. Additionally, I think the obsession over "intelligence" and "natural ability" is vastly overstated, in general. It absolutely helps, and it compounds, to be smart, but a person who "works hard" is infinitely more valuable to their colleagues than a smart person who d…

I've been learning to draw lately. It's amazing how much of what we presume to be natural ability is "just" the product of endless work. During my day job, I do math and it's the same. People say "I'm not a math person," but that's as stupid as "I can't draw." It's self fulfilling. Personally, I prefer "work diligently" over "work hard" because the most useful mental model for me is that it's a marathon, not a sprint…

This is spot on. How many people who believe they do not have the ability to draw have ever actually put deliberate practice into it?

I can't sit down at a piano and play a song, not because I'm incapable of it, but because I've never put any effort into learning how.

Re: Work Hard (2007)

#179

Post by ZephyrBlu »

imtringued wrote: post #172
ZephyrBlu wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not a problem. The problem I see is touting the value of hard work to people who may not have the requisite IQ to go along with it for their desired outcome (Best in the world in their field, for example). You said, Additionally, I think the obsession over "intelligence" and "natural ability" is vastly overstated, in general" . I think it's actually understated in general. Telling people who don't have the me…

Wow, I expected broken money systems to twist people's minds but not to this extent. Of course, in a broken money and work system there is a cutoff point for IQ at which corporations decide who to hire. The inverse position is that money isn't wealth. It's work and the product of our work that is wealth. Therefore willingness to work should be proportionally rewarded with work. Of course, since corporations hire whol…

This is not really what I meant or how I view this, though I completely agree with this:

> The chosen one then gets to feel superior because he both has the intellectual, moral and financial upper hand while he simultaneously gets to chastise the lazy, stupid, poor hobo. It is so easy to rebrand this process as "personal responsibility".

Regardless of whether companies have their own cutoff point, competition amongst people will create a natural cutoff point.

If there are a limited number of jobs, people will have to compete for those jobs. Sought after jobs will attract more people and have fiercer competition. More intelligent people will generally outcompete less intelligent people for these jobs, and so a natural IQ cutoff will form.

Re: Work Hard (2007)

#180

Post by courtf »

wheelinsupial wrote: post #143
courtf wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also a lot easier to work hard when you are handed access to every academic resource on the planet before you hit puberty. His life story is the most blatant counterexample to this article imaginable. Sounds like a case of deep denial.

Maybe an article he wrote called A Close Call: How a Near Failure Propelled Me to Succeed [1] might be of interest to you. "After many nerve-wracking minutes of closed-door de- liberation, the examiners did decide to (barely) pass me; however, my advisor gently explained his disappointment at my performance, and how I needed to do better in the future. I was still largely in a state of shock—this was the first time I…

Is this supposed to be a tale of overcoming adversity, almost failing some exam? The stakes are so low I can barely identify the conflict in the story. Actually failing something of actual importance and then overcoming the odds to succeed anyway would be a little less boring.

He sounds like he's lived his entire life in a university basement and mistook the petty challenges of academia for real life.

Post reply on HN