[3pt14159]

I'm sorry but only at my most very dedicated periods of work did I work 100 hour weeks, and that was like 3 or 4 weeks tops. I highly doubt that anyone sustains a 100 hour work week for much longer. Eighty hour work weeks? Sure, that is doable, but sleeping at the job site because you are pulling a 100 hour work week is just not sustainable.

[Kranar]

Rules changed in 2003, but until then medical residency programs routinely had doctors working 100+ hours a week or longer. In 2003 a cap of 80 hours a week was instituted along with a maximum of 24 hours in any given period, but programs found various loopholes around that cap which still had doctors working close to 100 hours a week. So further restrictions were placed so that over any 4 week period there's a hard cap of 320 hours, no exceptions.

At any rate, for most of the HN crowd who work a fairly routine IT or an office job, 80+ hours sustained for months and months might seem impossible, but join the military, work on a ship, work on a farm, work the oil fields, work in investment banking, work in a film crew which threatened to go on strike in 2021 for having 98 hour work weeks for months on end... and you find that while it's not common, it certainly happens in various fields.

[JambalayaJimbo]

Are residents and people working on ships actually making decisions for 100 hours a week? It's the cognitive load that I find difficult to believe about these numbers, not the

At one point I was also working crazy hours at a fast food shop. But that was only possible because I could "zone out" and just pour the customer's coffee and make sandwiches. Writing code for that long would have been impossible.

[amy_petrik]

[flagged]

[guappa]

I'm sure prisoners in labour camps work more than that. And the death toll for patients cured by overworked doctors is not insignificant.

[nostrebored]

6 days / 16 hours or 7 days / 14 hours still leaves time for a normal sleep schedule.

Many of the people in our YC batch were doing this for the duration of the batch. My cofounder and I both have families and managed to make a similar schedule work (with more peaks and valleys).

The last few weeks have been a crunch where I’ve been getting a lot closer to a true 140ish. That is unsustainable and I’ve had to go into it knowing that the price is future productivity.

But as a student with no commitments, 100hrs a week feels like the norm in YC startups right now.

[himeexcelanta]

This is performance - the human brain doesn’t work like this.

[isaacremuant]

You may have a family but how much time are you spending with them.

You know yourself but I think it's extremely unhealthy advice to give to people and usually hides a lot of inefficiency and misused hours.

Constraints breed creativity and efficiency. Do more with less and all that.

Have you done the exercise of "how can I produce the same value output in 80% of the time". The exact percentage doesn't matter, just doing the exercise to improve efficiency and have a more balanced approach. That also gives you space for actual crunch time whereas you seem to work in a perpetual state of crunch.

Is it real or is it performative? Are you taking care of health? Do you realize work is not everything to life and that you CAN have your cake and eat it too if you slightly balance it out.

Again, what you're doing might work for you but I'm trying to offer a slightly more nuanced take than what I consider it to be the "constant crunch" mode.

Busy doesn't mean value.

[raw_anon_1111]

And somehow you seem to be defending it. Even though there is statistically a better return just working in a bank as a Java dev in a second tier city.