Live data from Hacker News

Work for only 3 hours a day, but everyday

plumshell.com

131–140 of 146 posts

Re: Work for only 3 hours a day, but everyday

#131

If I told you that every car needed 8 gallons of gas to drive 100 miles, you'd point out I was wrong - so many different makes and models, not to mention variables from tire pressure to driving style. Yet for the potentially even more complex range that is different people, it amazes me that so much of the advice is didactic - we all need 8 hours sleep, 8 glasses of water, and 8 hours of work with breaks is optimal.…

"and 8 hours of work with breaks is optimal." 8 hour of work is 24/3. That is a turn in a factory. It have nothing to do with 'optimal', at least that we are talking optimal for the factory.

More specifically, it was arrived at as a target for labour rights campaigners after the 10 hour day had started becoming common. Owen formulated the famous "eight hours labour, eight hours recreation, eight hours rest" slogan in 1817, but it took half a century for the 8 hours day even to become the main goal for labour organizations most places (because they were still fighting for the 10 hour day, or even the 12 hour day), and it took more than a century from Owen's slogan for the 8 hour day to become widespread.

Since then labour organizations in many countries have set goals for shorter work days, and many countries have seen the work days shortened further to various extent, but given how long the fight for the 8 hour day took, we can expect it to take a long time.

But as you say, it has absolutely nothing to do with 'optimal'.

Re: Work for only 3 hours a day, but everyday

#132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your point with Einstein is invalid. "Einstein immigrated to the United States in 1933, where he held a professorship at Princeton University until his retirement in 1945. His routine there was simple. Between 9:00 and 10:00 A.M. he ate breakfast and perused the daily papers. At about 10:30 he left for his Princeton office, walking when the weather was nice; otherwise, a station wagon from the university woul…

We are discussing the suggestion that people work 3 hours. (Indeed the title of the article is literally "Work for only 3 hours a day, but everyday".) Your quote does cover 3 hours of work very clearly: "At about 10:30 he left for his Princeton office, walking when the weather was nice; otherwise, a station wagon from the university would pick him up. He worked until 1:00". That is almost exactly 3 hours. Your quote…

It's really difficult to compare work in different fields though. "Work" for a theoretician can be an unrelated activity where they're thinking about concepts (perhaps lazily); does work include inspiration time?

I can't remember who it was concerning but I recall an anecdote about a scientist who would appear to be asleep - they would then suddenly "wake" and write something down or try a calculation; are you working if you're lying in bed and your brain is subconsciously processing a conceptualisation of a hypothesis?

Re: Work for only 3 hours a day, but everyday

#133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "there's someone out there who is working harder than you on the same thing and they're going to win if you let up." I've heard Elon Musk say this a lot. It seems to work for him, at least. https://youtu.be/GtaxU6DZvLs?t=79

The training and diet regimen of an elite athlete would kill most of the population. What works for the 0.001% is not necessarily the best approach for everyone.

Such a regimen would kill those who immediately jumped into it from a typically sedentary life, sure. But if eased into, there is no reason most people couldn't handle it. Elite athletes didn't become highly performing in a day, and there are no special biological qualities required to become a high performer. It's just a lot of work, and most prefer to not do that work.

Re: Work for only 3 hours a day, but everyday

#134
post #39

I have experienced a similar thing while freelancing or design and web development. I used to work 16 hours some days and less hours others, but then sometimes I would need to work and found it hard to kick it into gear. I think creativity is like a well, and when you do creative work its like drawing that water out. If you use too much water one day, the well runs dry. You have to wait for the goundwater to fill it…

I think some of the question is Research versus Development. If you're doing creative work, constraints and deadlines help, but working past coherent thinking doesn't. You hit this point later (but still eventually) in Development projects where the creative demands are lower.

Re: Work for only 3 hours a day, but everyday

#135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Not only did I begin viewing creativity as a limited resource I create and have access to over time, but I noticed that some activities, like reading about science, listening to music, and walking around town actually increase the rate at which the well fills up." +1, many times over. Taking breaks and having fun are very important to maintaining high productivity and creativity when I am working. Unfortunately it's…

> "there's someone out there who is working harder than you on the same thing and they're going to win if you let up." I've heard Elon Musk say this a lot. It seems to work for him, at least. https://youtu.be/GtaxU6DZvLs?t=79

You don't know his baseline personality/attitude. It might be he's good at the relaxing and being creative aspect, and so needs to personally remind himself to work hard. Other people might naturally work very hard, but need to remind themselves to relax.

Re: Work for only 3 hours a day, but everyday

#136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The training and diet regimen of an elite athlete would kill most of the population. What works for the 0.001% is not necessarily the best approach for everyone.

Such a regimen would kill those who immediately jumped into it from a typically sedentary life, sure. But if eased into, there is no reason most people couldn't handle it. Elite athletes didn't become highly performing in a day, and there are no special biological qualities required to become a high performer. It's just a lot of work, and most prefer to not do that work.

As a not even close to elite runner I disagree. I can do the same workout as a world class runner, relative to my fitness. Run 20 minutes at 80% heart rate. Run 10 minutes at 95% heart rate. Repeat 4 times. (Not a real workout but it proves a point).

What gets me is recovery. I would be unable to run hard for a week after that. Younger pros do like 5 or 6 really hard workouts a week. Older pros a bit less.

I totally would follow them but my body cannot recover between workouts. In my opinion what makes a world class marathoner is not his ability to work hard, it's a special gift to recover. I would work just as hard, but I physically can't as often as they do.

Saying anyone can be an elite marathoner by running like an elite marathoner? Bull. Any decent runner can do a workout or 2. Then you need a week to recover.

What does all this have to do with programming? Maybe nothing. Or maybe what makes the super productive guys so good is they mentally recovery faster? No idea on programming front, but I am confident on the running front it is all recovery.

Re: Work for only 3 hours a day, but everyday

#137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in the UK contractors / consultants / freelancers do charge daily and i definitely prefer it over hourly rates or fixed per project prices

I've been checking UK ads looking for contractors, and I was wondering: How do you take into account long (8h+) vs short(4h+) days?

it's an assumed 8 hour day... if they notice you're only working 4 hours they'd expect you to bill half a day

Re: Work for only 3 hours a day, but everyday

#138
I'm about to quit my day job and work on my own projects. I planed to maintain a 9-6 working style by going to a library with wifi. Reading this post I'm now thinking maybe I can experiment with different work routines and see which one is more productive for me.

Re: Work for only 3 hours a day, but everyday

#139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Says who? I've not found this to be historically so at all in my own perception. Feel free to share some data.

I mean historically as in, in the annals of history. I've now updated my comment with two examples.

Thanks.

I don't see how the Einstein example is relevant, feel free to elaborate.

On instagram... you're introduction valuation, not nominal productivity.

i.e., imagine I can either produce 1 smartphone after a year working 100 hours per week, or produce 100 smartphones after 10 years, working 10 hours per week.

Well, nominally, the latter example is way more productive. You produce 10x as many phones per year while working 1/10th the time. There's absolutely no way you can say that the former is more productive.

But, building today's smartphone in 10 years is obviously going to leave you with little value. In 10 years, your 10-year old tech will be valued very little.

Your instagram example is like that. The engineers working on it may have been much more productive if given 10 years to work on their project, but its valuation would be shit because it's last to market instead of first to market. So, not a great example.

If you're trying to say that working hard in short periods, allowing you to get to market before anyone else, is better than taking your time, then obviously that's true, but that's more a function of competition than it is of productivity!

Further, it's a poor example. Show me data that's meaningful for a large group of people, not extreme outliers. How many people do you know that created a $1b company or came up with g relativity theory? It's like saying 'dropping out of school is a great idea, look at Gates and Zuckerberg'. When in reality the data overwhelmingly supports the notion that finishing school has positive outcomes in your life. You can prove anything by looking at selective (outlier) examples, but show me examples that commonly occur.

Meanwhile overwhelmingly studies show that productivity drops sharply after some amount of hours. You get more work done per unit of time when working 8 hours per day, than 16 hours, period. That's what productivity measures.

There is obviously some lower bound, if you work in 3 minute intervals you're spending a lot of your time 'starting up' your workspace and getting your brain tuned in your work, and so productivity (work per unit of time) drops. I wouldn't be surprised if 4 times 90 minutes was less productive than working for 6 hours, that makes a lot of sense. But there's also an upper bound, where you lose concentration and motivation and are better off resting and getting back to it the next day, such that working two days of 6 hours is more productive than a single 12 hour session. Feel free to look at the many, many studies that confirm this. The above applies to virtually anyone, any organisation, any individual, productivity has diminishing returns as you scale way down or way up.

Re: Work for only 3 hours a day, but everyday

#140
post #44
post #40

I agree with this article mostly, although 3 hours a day might be too little to make good progress with work for some people. This article reminded me of my previous workplace (about 7 years ago) where my manager discouraged engineers from working for more than 6 hours a day. He recommended 4 hours of work per day and requested us not to exceed more than 6 hours of work per day. He believed working for less number of…

I've found 6 hours to be about the right amount day in and day out.

Same here; I've build a system around this, i.e. 6 sets of 50 minute sprints. No pressure hitting this volume, it's not a goal, but more a data point.
Post reply on HN