of course working for 100 hrs/wk will lead to burnout. BUT 1. work 40 hours / week for 5 months, no vacations = 800 hours work 2. work 100 hours / week for 2 months, then take 3 months completely off = 800 hours of work (2) seems to be preferable if you can pull it off
problem is that at a company, working so much will entrench you in a bunch of different activities so taking three months off becomes implausible
-
-
a very good point! but if we're talking about personal projects and stuff, then 2 is very real possibility for the explore then exploit cycle
-
i feel like the people that put in 100 hrs/week into their personal projects probably don’t wanna take 3 months off for every 2 months of week.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.