It sounds like you are saying in order to be great at software you have to put in double time on software. Spending half your time, e.g., painting, would be a crippling disability relative to the 80 hour a week programmers.

Am I getting that right? Seems like an odd argument given what I know about your opinion towards head-down traditional game design process.

I feel like I get a lot of software expertise from making gnocchi and watching my chickens scratch around the garden, but maybe I'm fooling myself. Genuinely interested to know your opinion.

My (baseless) opinion is that quality of experiments matters a lot more than sheer number.