You can't underestimate the value of routine if you want to progress with the things you do. The more you do, the tighter your routine has to be. It's something I am constantly fighting with: trying to establish a routine and then stick to it. There are far too much distractions nowadays. It's almost like gathering information vs. applying that information and turning it into knowledge.
I feel you. Things like Hacker News, and the internet in general, tend to masquerade as "productiveness" when you (think) you're learning from them. But in the end, it's kind of like watching the Discovery channel: you think you're absorbing and learning a lot, but in the end, you've been so overwhelmed with edutainment that honestly you take away very little. A philosopher professor once asked the class "name one thing you've learned from the Discover channel," and to my surprise, all I could think of was "tons of things"
As far as I can tell, there really is no substitute for hands on experience. It's one thing to obtain knowledge, but quite another exercise to apply it. That's where routine plays in; it's showtime. I afford myself some time each day (during breaks, warm-ups, wind-downs) for some "half-distractions" like Hacker News, and on rarer occasion, a "full distraction" like going out, exercise, whatever. But I really enjoy the grind of coding because it's where I can see my ideas come alive, and look back at the day with the feeling "I now have more tangible assets."
I went through a period of several months feeling like crap because I wasn't producing anything, only thinking of a gazillion amazing ideas that merely lacked implementation. That all changes when you start to produce. Your routine forms around whatever you're doing, and at this point, it's no longer a challenge, it's a joy. The bonus is, I'm definitely not lacking in the "thinking of ideas" category... it turns out that for me having concrete implementations of things only helps me think of new ideas, much more so than even spending the entire day brainstorming. This makes sense in some way... any new ideas generally come from existing implementations, and if I make my own new implementation of something, I can now think of even newer ideas that beforehand would have been such a stretch to come up with.
As per routines, and hours/week, I don't think there's much point debating anything about it. Who says I'm not working while I'm in the shower, or sleeping? I've caught bugs in my sleep, and spent the dream debugging them. I think what matters far beyond routine is finding something that you're excited enough to work on to have that routine naturally form.
Something I find very useful about reading a site like HN is the little seeds it plants in my mind: I read about some interesting program/ language/ library/ framework/ technique/ theory or whatever, and then, six months later, I find myself needing such a thing and remember, isn't there that thing I read about?
Also, I'll discover something I maybe didn't even know existed and realise that I should learn about it; and so take a mental note to do so. Then, later, when I have the time and inclination to learn about something new, it's there on my list.
I agree. Every so often there's a post about something that can change my approach or direction to a problem I'm solving. Even if it's not relevant to what I'm doing, there's a wealth of information that's worth knowing. In a nutshell: HN is an extraordinarily good place for a tech entrepreneur to find out what he doesn't know.
However, in practice, I find it still takes a substantial amount of effort to filter the information I'm exposed to into something I can use in the near future. The amount of due diligence in figuring out if a certain technology (especially if it's new and if you lack experience with it) is a large enough barrier for me to usually continue on with what I'm doing. I simply don't have time to learn a new language every month, or learn how to migrate to new DB, or any infrastructural changes like that.[1] On the scale of things, I've prioritized "get stuff done" as #1, with "learn how to get better stuff done faster" as #2. HN is good at #2.
Like anything, HN is what you make of it. I personally love the fact that HN is so densely populated with the exactly the type of people whose opinions I actually respect (surprisingly rare for me), and who I'd like to network with. As a result of the amazing crowd here, I get to learn what I don't know at an astounding rate. From there I can leave it to my natural curiosity and ambition to fill it in.
Edit: [1] Another thing is, quite often people post things on HN merely seeking validation of what they're doing. So many blogs I read are about "Here's how I do something, and why you should, too. (And since I'm telling you to do it, it means I'm right)" which puts an even huger burden of due diligence on my shoulder. So I might have heard of xyz... but still don't know if it is worthwhile.
You say that you "take away very little" information as a result of reading HN.
I believe the information is in your brain, but only accessible at certain times. Your professor asked his question in a very difficult way. Suppose I asked you to tell me everything you know about programming and computer science? Would you be able to tell me everything you know?
When it comes to feeling unproductive on HN, I suppose it depends on your purpose here.
By comparison, Reddit would be a "full-distraction." On HN I get very knowledgeable opinions and advice that are relevant to what I'm working on. That's the good half. The bad half is that reading HN doesn't get work done.
The role of mundane activities is interesting: A cup of tea, reading the newspaper, taking a walk, smoking a cigar, etc.
People who have trouble sleeping are, among other things, supposed to establish a routine. Repeating mundane activities (brush teeth, lock doors, turn down thermostat, etc) in the same way every night seems to prime the brain for sleep.
I suspect it doesn't matter what you do before you settle in to work, simply that you establish some "it's time to work now" cues and then take advantage of them.
"Sincerity begins at a little over 100 hours a week. You can probably get to 110 hours on a sustained basis, but it's hard. You have to get down to eating once a day and showering every other day, things of that sort to really get your life organized to work 110 hours."
- Len Bosack, co-founder, Cisco Systems, and hero to the hardcore
I'm certain that both the Cisco founders have a "benign" variant of OCD. Turning these people into heroes is counterproductive: for every founder that is actually able to get something out of their 110-hour workweek, there are 100 who only make their lives miserable and accomplish nothing trying to emulate the masters.
There is no way any halfway sane person is able to work 110 hours a week on a "sustained basis". Your physical and mental health will start to suffer after a pretty short time. Genius comes with insanity, not the other way around. There are a few crazy, brilliant people out there, but you will know beforehand if you are one of them. Ripping out piercings on stage will not turn you into Marilyn Manson, breaking all the sexual conventions will not turn you into Oscar Wilde and leaving only 8 hours a day for life-supporting routines will not turn you into Len Bosack.
Normal people should play by the normal rules. You're only wasting your life if you keep telling yourself that you have to be hard, cold and miserable in order to succeed. The crazy geniuses in this category don't read Hacker News.
Having had sustained periods of 112 hour weeks I agree that the physical, mental and emotional toll is incredible. Having said that, I do belive that some people can work longer hours than others, particularly when they enjoy their jobs and are passionate about what they're doing.
I try to keep myself down to 50-60 hours a week. I'm not quite sure what I'd do if I limited myself to 35!
I personally don't believe there's anything wrong with working every waking minute if it's your only job at that time. If you don't have kids, and don't have a spouse or partner and at that period of time you're content with it then I say go for it.
However, I wouldn't idolize someone who does do that. The true hero is someone who can work for 10 hours a week and get done what the man doing 100 hours a week does.
Sadly an addendum to this, as a writer my output is directly correlative to the time put in. However there's a limit to how much I'll actually get done. Sometimes ignoring my writing seems to get more done. I've sat down and written for 6 hours in a row and only been snapped out because I was dying from hunger and I'd drank like 4 sodas and hadn't gone piss. I got more work done in those 6 hours than I normally do in 30 hours.
Thanks, prakash. It still works for me. Last night, I spent 2 hours filling in a 5 x 5 grid on one notebook page (the 25 possible outcomes of a process). This morning the code just flowed. Coming here is my reward.
Good find. I'm pretty amazed at the fact that Charles Darwin used to work only for 3 hours. I think 3 hours of work without any interruptions is better than my 8 hours spent on computer (plus at the end I always have a feeling I couldn't complete the stuff today---yet again;( ). Amazing. I'm just guessing that these guys must have settled on such routines after lots of hit and trial. Not sure, what should I do with my routine as mostly I'm tired of my sleeping routine and I've almost given up on that.
While these are interesting anecdotes, and I am certainly not in a good position to criticize (being especially good at procrastination), I wouldn't not put too much weight on these stories. Maybe some of them are more myth than reality, and trying to follow the ideal might do more harm than good?
Certainly it sounds like a good idea to have a strict daily routine, but maybe it doesn't work for everyone. Maybe it didn't even work for most of those interesting people, but some PR person or biographer or whatever deemed it necessary to portray these people's lives as such.
There is such thing as too much routine for creative types. An analogy: think about it like . . . genetic mutations sometimes arise from too much routine. Not all genetic mutations are bad; sometimes they contribute toward survival of a species.
obama: '"Even as he is sober about these challenges, I have never seen him happier," Mr. Axelrod said. "The chance to be under the same roof with his kids, essentially to live over the store, to be able to see them whenever he wants, to wake up with them, have breakfast and dinner with them — that has made him a very happy man."'
so true. i became much more productive with more freedom on how to divide my day and with whom.
