reading "The Power of Habit", "Mindset" and "How we Learn", it is ringing more true to me each day that we all have a fixed budget of willpower, creative thought, and focused learning -- and all three are extremely taxed working as a software engineer.

I also am a firm believer in the power of falling asleep while thinking about a problem, and waking up with a fresh approach on how to solve the problem. Thomas Edison was famous for taking naps with a steel bearing on a plate. Salvador Dali had a similar technique he called "slumber with a key"

I wasn't sure what you were trying to saying there so I looked it up:

To further assure that he would not lapse into sleep, he would hold a steel ball bearing in each hand. On the floor, placed directly below his closed hand would be a metal saucer. If he should fall completely asleep, his hands would relax and each ball bearing would fall to the floor, striking the metal saucer, making a noise loud enough to wake Edison.

1. https://fireballimagery.com/2011/09/01/the-naps-of-thomas-ed...

Just to clarify, as you make it sound like that fixed budget is something inherent in yourself; however there is evidence that you can influence what that budget is http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000014

Full paper PDF: https://psychology.stanford.edu/sites/all/files/Implicit%20T...

I've only read the abstract. Does the paper address the possibility that people with more willpower might believe it's unlimited? Or that having more willpower in total allows some of tbat willpower to be allocated to the meta-allocation of willpower?

What is the direction of causation?

Now that you mention it, I should have left out "fixed" in "fixed budget" (Also goes contrary to the second book I listed, ironically

I am lucky. I finally have an office with a lockable door. At lunch time I take a power nap of 12 to 20 minutes. Afternoons flow better and if I am coding it goes much faster with better problem solving.

I deeply envy you.

LOL. Don't worry. The current state of Yahoo and their CEO clearly proves you're right. But remember, many people here make a living by pushing others to unhealthy extremes. This is their entire job. So of course they will downvote you for suggesting the time they and their exhausted programmers "worked" on weekends was wasted. Doesn't change the fact that it was.

Some ideas are doomed no matter how clever, motivated, or well-considered the working environments.

We champion Newton for his work in gravity, optics, and mechanics.

Not so much in alchemy.

If the field you're plowing isn't fertile, no amount of good agronomy will help you.

Yahoo may not have been abolutely intractable, but it was in a bad position and getting worse. I had no interest in working for the company or using its products, and I'm no particular fan of Meyers (I think she's accomplished a few useful things, may be felt by her absence at Google, and has also done and said some tremendously stupid things as well). But hanging Yahoo on her neck alone is false narrative.

In general I agree with you but I am pretty sure there are people who can work at high performance much longer than other people can do. Some people also need only 3 hours of sleep where others need 8 or more. I think it's genetic in the same way some people can run 100 m in 11 seconds without training where others need 14 seconds and will never get even close to 11 even if they train.

If you don't have that "talent" for long work hours it's probably counterproductive to force yourself into something you just can't do.