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

81–90 of 203 posts

Re: Work Hard (2007)

#81

Post by gautamdivgi »

albatross13 wrote: post #35
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…

It's kind of a double edged sword- I've worked with a few people that "work hard" and "get things done", only to find out once they leave (or go on vacation) that now we have to untangle a 600 line bash script that's integral to production. I'm being a bit hyperbolic here, but the gist of my point is: not everyone who works hard is worth keeping around, especially if their hard work leads to an un-managable mess in t…

The obvious question is why this wasn’t caught and rectified in code review? This seems to be as much a failure due to lack of oversight as opposed to the failure of the person who created the mess.

Re: Work Hard (2007)

#82

Post by alexashka »

It's interesting to see what qualified as worthy of a blog post not so long ago.

It takes time and effort to do difficult tasks? You shouldn't overwork?

What new insights, let me blog about it :)

For those who don't know, the 8 hour work days and holidays were talked about by Adam Smith more than 200 years ago. The reason that system was put in place was because letting people work as much as they wanted led to over-exertion and injuries, lowering productivity.

That was for physical labor by the way. In another 200 years, I expect people to finally realize that thinking is harder than repetitive physical labor and one can't do more than a few hours of it, per day.

Until then we'll have 'burn out' blog posts and people reading and posting on HackerNews/reddit/twitter during work hours.

Re: Work Hard (2007)

#83

Post by reidjs »

ttul wrote: post #27
herodoturtle wrote: post #4

> there is an important distinction between “working hard” and “maximising the number of hours during which one works”. In particular, forcing oneself to work even when one is tired, unmotivated, unprepared, or distracted with other tasks can end up being counterproductive to one’s long-term work productivity, and there is a saturation point beyond which pushing oneself to work even longer will actually reduce the to…

And of course most of us are skipping through reading about “working hard…”

Because working hard can mean skimming articles or delegating it to someone else to get you the gist of it. I don't have time to read every single interesting sounding article I come across. Well maybe I do, but then I wouldn't have as much time for commenting :)

Re: Work Hard (2007)

#84

Post by giantg2 »

GDC7 wrote: post #75
giantg2 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would love hard work if it actually resulted in something. I'm not making very good money. I'm not making meaningful contributions to my field. I'm not even in a position to do either. The problem is, hard work is rarely rewarded beyond some words. If it's not rewarded and I'm not in a position to make an impact, then there's no point.

Have you ever considered that in the worst case scenario you could move to Colombia or South Africa or Thailand and have an immediate boost in your social relevancy?

My wife would leave me if I tried to move us anywhere out of our current county, let alone country.

"... and have an immediate boost in your social relevancy?"

I'm not sure I believe this. You have to become a trusted/respected member of the community, which takes time.

Re: Work Hard (2007)

#85

Post by reidjs »

albatross13 wrote: post #71
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.

I can assure you, when shit is broken in production and customers are knocking at the door threatening to cancel it is not a luxury to find out these types of things...let alone start untangling the web.

He means that those customers wouldn't exist in the first place if it weren't for the messy code.

Re: Work Hard (2007)

#86

Post by TameAntelope »

paulpauper wrote: post #40
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…

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 doesn't, and tries to rely on raw intellect. That may be true for something like digging a ditch, but IQ is needed to make those necessary logical leaps f…

The whole point of the submission is that even when high IQ is required, you also need to "work hard" to do anything substantial.

The common thread is "work hard", not "be smart", but people obsess over intelligence/natural gifts, and consistently underestimate the "ditch diggers".

Jobs was a ditch digger.

Gates was a ditch digger.

Musk is a ditch digger.

PG is a ditch digger.

Tao is a ditch digger.

Jordan was a ditch digger.

Woods was a ditch digger.

Carlsen is a ditch digger.

Some (all) of them also are naturally gifted, but their success is due to their ability to "work hard", or at least that's what I've read them say over and over again. Maybe I and they are all wrong about it, I'm open to that possibility, but theres a consistent theme that every successful person I can think of repeats when asked, and it's some variation on "work hard".

Re: Work Hard (2007)

#87

Post by garrickvanburen »

herodoturtle wrote: post #4

> there is an important distinction between “working hard” and “maximising the number of hours during which one works”. In particular, forcing oneself to work even when one is tired, unmotivated, unprepared, or distracted with other tasks can end up being counterproductive to one’s long-term work productivity, and there is a saturation point beyond which pushing oneself to work even longer will actually reduce the to…

Sometimes, the most productive thing you can do is take a nap in the middle of the day.

On a daily basis, I do so more often than not.

Re: Work Hard (2007)

#88

Post by themacguffinman »

didibus wrote: post #47

I don't really know if I believe in hard work. I feel more inclined to see things from the motivation school of thought. When you're motivated, all work is easy. The "hard" feeling comes from pushing through doing something you are not motivated to do. And the thing is, I don't know if anyone is successful at that. I feel most success comes from people who had the motivation for it. Can you force yourself or others t…

I'm fairly confident that when the article says "hard work", it just means "a lot of work". The article later mentions that more motivation will help you work harder.

The point is that motivated or not, high quality output requires a lot of work. Working a lot on a particular thing is still going to be easier for some and harder for others.

Re: Work Hard (2007)

#89

Post by wvh »

herodoturtle wrote: post #4

> there is an important distinction between “working hard” and “maximising the number of hours during which one works”. In particular, forcing oneself to work even when one is tired, unmotivated, unprepared, or distracted with other tasks can end up being counterproductive to one’s long-term work productivity, and there is a saturation point beyond which pushing oneself to work even longer will actually reduce the to…

> Worth highlighting, for those of you that are skipping through.

Like my employer...

Re: Work Hard (2007)

#90

Post by srean »

reidjs wrote: post #85
albatross13 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can assure you, when shit is broken in production and customers are knocking at the door threatening to cancel it is not a luxury to find out these types of things...let alone start untangling the web.

He means that those customers wouldn't exist in the first place if it weren't for the messy code.

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