News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:John Carmack on shorter work weeks (2016) by ren_engineer on Friday June 16, 2023 @07:59PM (#36365616)
I think a huge part comes down to if you are actually interested in what you are working on. I can pretty easily do 16+ hour days if I'm doing something I enjoy, whether that's writing code or playing videos games when I was a kid.

Another huge factor is being able to avoid external stressors which are what really drain people and cause burnout I think, having bad co-workers or manager, health issues, family issues, etc. is a killer and will impact your focus drastically. Big difference between working long hours because you are having fun versus working long hours because a boss is breathing down your neck and you'll be fired if you don't finish something in a few weeks

Carmack is also in a favorable position where he's basically always been able to choose only projects he's passionate about for work, so he can't really see the perspective of somebody being forced to work on something pointless by their boss

my take from his comment was that even when you are too mentally drained to write code or something similarly demanding, you could still do stuff like meetings, responding to emails, getting feedback from customers, planning stuff you will code when mentally fresh, etc. So the critical thing is to make sure you can focus on valuable stuff when you are at your best and try to save the other stuff for later

Re:John Carmack on shorter work weeks (2016) by epolanski on Friday June 16, 2023 @08:23PM (#36365770)
But how many days can you do it?

Doesn't matter how much I love an activity I can hardly do it all time for more than few days.

Re:John Carmack on shorter work weeks (2016) by kqr on Saturday June 17, 2023 @02:04AM (#36367717)
Maybe I'm in the same atypical group as Carmack (a sentence I never thought I'd utter) but during a normal work week, my idea of relaxing is things like studying statistics, product development, numerical methods to solve differential equations, history, etc.

This is stuff most people would call "work" because it does take effort, it makes me a better developer and much of it ties somewhat directly into problems I'm facing at work. But for me it's winding down after work, and recharging for the next day.

Sometimes I have so much to do at work that I need to just read fiction or play around in the darkroom to relax. But this is not the norm -- it's happened twice in the last decade, and lasted for about a month.

So for the question of how many days I can do it? On average 1795.

Re:John Carmack on shorter work weeks (2016) by djhn on Saturday June 17, 2023 @01:32PM (#36372349)
Out of curiosity, how would you rate on a scale of 1%-100% the extent to which your professional work aligns with what you want to do professionally later in your career?
Re:John Carmack on shorter work weeks (2016) by kqr on Sunday June 18, 2023 @01:04AM (#36377482)
Great question. Considering all possible lines of work, maybe 99.5 %? But that's a little like saying I share 98 % of my DNA with chimpanzees -- maybe those last 2 % are the parts of interest.

Considering just the general area of IT, maybe 80 %? I get to do product development which is my interest, but there are also many things which I would like to be different, like purpose of product, organisational size, leadership philosophies, etc.

Now -- why do you ask?

Re:John Carmack on shorter work weeks (2016) by djhn on Monday June 19, 2023 @04:24AM (#36388623)
I'm curious to hear about people who have found themselves in such a great place professionally.

I can work all waking hours on passion projects (including the boring grind - not just the infatuation and ideation phase) as long as it's self directed. Finding work opportunities that aren't orthogonal to long term areas of interest and don't feel like accumulating useless experience and constructing a parallel career is hard.

Re:John Carmack on shorter work weeks (2016) by neuronerdgirl on Saturday June 17, 2023 @01:37PM (#36372408)
>Sometimes I have so much to do at work that I need to just read fiction or play around in the darkroom to relax. But this is not the norm -- it's happened twice in the last decade, and lasted for about a month.

Ok but you're literally describing a burnout cycle. Some people would prefer to just skip that part and have a completely sustainable working pace.

Re:John Carmack on shorter work weeks (2016) by kqr on Sunday June 18, 2023 @12:56AM (#36377453)
No. Having so much to do at work for a brief period that I choose not to take on extra work is not burnout. Calling it that would insult every person suffering from actual burnout.
Re:John Carmack on shorter work weeks (2016) by cramjabsyn on Friday June 16, 2023 @10:19PM (#36366547)
The point still stands that doing 16+ hour days leaves little left for yourself and family.
Re:John Carmack on shorter work weeks (2016) by gexla on Saturday June 17, 2023 @01:02AM (#36367455)
So, the huge factor you're talking about is stress. Another factor is multi-tasking. Each are multipliers in draining energy.

I can work 16 hour days also, but I'm still dealing with a good portion of that at a seriously degraded mental state. At the end, I'll be making the dumbest mistakes, and it's questionable if that time is even useful.

Athletes do it best I think. They have their cycles of sport, training and recovery. They know their limits. They know their optimum.

Re:John Carmack on shorter work weeks (2016) by staunton on Saturday June 17, 2023 @02:57AM (#36367967)
They (top athletes) are also often physically devastated at age 40 and suffer from chronic issues for the rest of their lives. The incentives for top athletes are not conducive to a healthy life at all.
Re:John Carmack on shorter work weeks (2016) by jdkoeck on Saturday June 17, 2023 @03:35AM (#36368129)
Citation needed! I don’t think any of this is true and, of course, I would imagine it’s not the same for all sports.
Re:John Carmack on shorter work weeks (2016) by cplusplusfellow on Saturday June 17, 2023 @04:47AM (#36368463)
It’s anecdotal but I was pretty shocked by the fact that NBA players have significant and serious issues with their feet.
Re:John Carmack on shorter work weeks (2016) by cafard on Saturday June 17, 2023 @11:28AM (#36371060)
Well, they tend to be bigger than other fit people (NFL players excepted), and they do a lot of jumping, which if all goes well is followed by landing.
Re:John Carmack on shorter work weeks (2016) by throw__away7391 on Saturday June 17, 2023 @04:53AM (#36368491)
I worked with a guy who played college football and had aspirations for the NFL, he was a wreck and always complaining about the lingering effects of injuries from his days playing. I guess this is somewhat expected with a contact sport, but I've also seen guys I knew who did a lot of high intensity training and after about 10 years or so seem to start aging more quickly compared to their non-athletic siblings.

I mean getting exercise is definitely good for you and in a choice between too much and too little I think you're better off overdoing it, but just constantly burning your metabolism at full steam seems to age you faster, couple that with the impact caloric deficit is supposed to have on aging and at least in my mind there's a pretty clear connection between the two.

Re:John Carmack on shorter work weeks (2016) by ernst_klim on Saturday June 17, 2023 @05:24AM (#36368629)
As someone who did competitive weightlifting early in my life I don't think it's true.

First of all, a healthy body is very good at adaptation, i.e. if properly trained, your bones, muscles and other tissues get thicker and less prone to tearing, breakage etc.

Second, you will be surprised at how much pressure could daily activities put on your tissues, e.g. your vertabrae disks get higher pressure when you are wobbly sitting than standing even with some additional load. And in my experience people who train their body for extreme conditions have less problems in their elderly than people who never trained much at all.

And as you've noticed, most sportspeople have troubles with their serious traumas, not due to routine trainings. Plus of course this traumatization level varies from sport to sport.

Re:John Carmack on shorter work weeks (2016) by 2muchcoffeeman on Saturday June 17, 2023 @06:12AM (#36368842)
I don’t think it’s super clear from your post.

In this friends case it was the NFL part that caused the damage. Not the fitness part.

I once did a boxing class. The day we did drills with with those boxing pads that require 2 hands to hold up, my head was throbbing for the rest of the day. Tried it again and same thing. Then I quit. Clearly I cannot take a serious punch.

Re:John Carmack on shorter work weeks (2016) by kossTKR on Saturday June 17, 2023 @05:07AM (#36368554)
This is common knowledge. Both retired pro soccer and handball players in my scandinavian countries almost all have a myriad of issues, most commonly and serious knee issues that require many operations.

I know several pro swimmers though and haven't heard of any serious issues there, so i guess it's from the impacts and constant running.

Re:John Carmack on shorter work weeks (2016) by DanielHB on Saturday June 17, 2023 @12:56PM (#36372001)
Heck, I'm Brazilian and it feels like 50% of males I know developed knee problem in their late 30s/early 40s Almost all of them were weekend football (court, not grass) players. The others were week day players as well

Me, like the good nerd, I am developed back problems instead

Re:John Carmack on shorter work weeks (2016) by Archelaos on Saturday June 17, 2023 @06:11AM (#36368835)
Just google for it. Many studies are easy to find online. Of course, it is not the same for all sports.
Re:John Carmack on shorter work weeks (2016) by etherealG on Monday June 19, 2023 @01:54PM (#36394354)
Some people enjoy multi tasking. For them, focus = boredom = frustration. That’s me. If you give me 7 hours per day on the same focused task, I’ll burn out just like you described for the opposite.

Please stop projecting your ideal work life onto other people.

Mental preferences are endlessly complex. It’s not ok to assume everyone has your preference and can work the same hours and way you do. It’s also not ok to project that towards some work / life balance that assumes things outside work are primary drivers in everyone’s lives.

Some people derive their main satisfaction in life from the fruit of their work. That’s ok too.

Re:John Carmack on shorter work weeks (2016) by PhasmaFelis on Saturday June 17, 2023 @02:21AM (#36367805)
> I can pretty easily do 16+ hour days if I'm doing something I enjoy, whether that's writing code or playing videos games when I was a kid.

I'm a coder by trade, but I've never really spent lots of personal time coding, like most of the really good coders I know. That's just not fun for me.

On the other hand, I do sometimes spend many personal hours making spreadsheets for fun. I need to figure out how to get paid for that.

Re:John Carmack on shorter work weeks (2016) by theodric on Saturday June 17, 2023 @02:45AM (#36367914)
> I need to figure out how to get paid for that.

Or don't. Monetizing your leisure activity might well turn it into Just More Work that drains and stresses. Speaking for myself, I needed zero-stakes activities as a pressure relief valve when I was doing the corporate job, or I'd end up relying to chemicals to simulate that relaxation and get back to baseline. Benzos rot your brain, booze makes you fat; pottering in the ham shack does neither.

Re:John Carmack on shorter work weeks (2016) by PhasmaFelis on Friday June 30, 2023 @07:25PM (#36544004)
Mileage may vary, but the only times I really enjoy my job are when I get to really muck around with spreadsheets and handy little scripts. Most of the rest of it is just endlessly frustrating. It's possible I'm wrong, but I think my life satisfaction would be a lot higher if I could do that fill time and get paid.
Re:John Carmack on shorter work weeks (2016) by theodric on Friday July 07, 2023 @05:25PM (#36638532)
Well, you do you. Vaya con Dios. I hope you can get rich & happy!
Re:John Carmack on shorter work weeks (2016) by kramerger on Saturday June 17, 2023 @04:25AM (#36368352)
> Carmack is also in a favorable position where he's basically always been able to choose only projects he's passionate about for work, so he can't really see the perspective of somebody being forced to work on something pointless by their boss

BUT HE SHOULD!

One of his first jobs was a soul crushing dev work when they had to write X random PC utilities every Y week for some monthly subscription thingy. You know what he did? He started slacking like crazy at work so he could work on game development with his bodies at home. Using company equipment he more or less stole from work.

(I think he was sued for this, and then repeated it many years later and was sued by Facebook)

So technically, he worked shorter hours. He just didn't tell his boss.

Source: https://www.amazon.com/Masters-Doom-Created-Transformed-Cult...

Re:John Carmack on shorter work weeks (2016) by ionwake on Saturday June 17, 2023 @06:33AM (#36368932)
Really interesting thanks for sharing and for the link
Re:John Carmack on shorter work weeks (2016) by omnimus on Saturday June 17, 2023 @06:43AM (#36368984)
In this context it sounds like hes a hypocrite. Hes the boss now so hes pushing overwork as s virtue. I wonder how would he like having current self for a boss in those PC utility companies.
Re:John Carmack on shorter work weeks (2016) by the_overseer on Saturday June 17, 2023 @01:05PM (#36372079)
People are so in love with the guy they never mention this part.... Maybe because they dream of being in his position?

Most people doing what he did would get so fired so quickly... yet when everbody's favorie guy does it...

Re:John Carmack on shorter work weeks (2016) by hoten on Sunday June 18, 2023 @04:35AM (#36378377)
Can you provide a source for the Facebook claim?
Re:John Carmack on shorter work weeks (2016) by LordNibbler on Sunday June 18, 2023 @02:47PM (#36383100)
Re:John Carmack on shorter work weeks (2016) by hoten on Tuesday June 20, 2023 @11:47AM (#36405779)
Not to claim that the courts always unveil the truth, but in that case a jury found Carmack not culpable of IP theft.
Re:John Carmack on shorter work weeks (2016) by chr1 on Saturday June 17, 2023 @04:32AM (#36368380)
Stress or being passionate can not explain all the difference between what people can do. They sure help, but if you then compare average person to someone like John Von Nueman or Ramanujan it's almost as if they are on different class of hardware.
Re:John Carmack on shorter work weeks (2016) by 2muchcoffeeman on Saturday June 17, 2023 @06:21AM (#36368879)
I think stress is the clear negative factor.

I can easily work my day job, go to the gym and give it my best, and then come back home and fire up my own project if I’m generally feeling happy.

If I’m stressed it can lead to some other mental health issues and then even my day job is effected.

I think anyone can do this if they were allowed to structure their work the way they want and work on the things they want to. Then we’d all be Carmacks in our chosen field. But we aren’t all so lucky.

Re:John Carmack on shorter work weeks (2016) by devchix on Saturday June 17, 2023 @10:01AM (#36370235)
>I can pretty easily do 16+ hour days if I'm doing something I enjoy

But is there context switching? I can probably do 12hrs of X, but if it's 8hrs of X + 4hrs of Y, X and Y being things I enjoy and want to do very much, I don't think I'd have the wherewithal to switch to Y after 8hrs of X. 12 hrs of X: you're already in the groove, you have the context, you're working toward a goal in a continuum. 4hrs of Y, you have to spend activation energy, fiddle a bit with finding where you left off, what the problem space was, before you get in the groove. That take-off alone will sap probably an hour. You can do it, but attended with all our human foibles, are you going to mentally decide you're going to start Y, after 8hrs of X?

Re:John Carmack on shorter work weeks (2016) by downrightmike on Saturday June 17, 2023 @03:38PM (#36373785)
He left Meta because his ideas conflicted with other's