Tbh most people who considered studying math/applied math say they noticed at some point that someone in their class just got it on so much more of an intuitive level and they realized they’d never reach that. I definitely had this experience.
Sure if I kept going at for an arbitrarily long time I’d *maybe* be able to solve the problem, but the point is that we don’t actually have endless time, and being ‘good’ at math at a certain level does require that you can do things reasonably quickly.
It's self-protective to think you'd be real good at math were it not for your average genetic intelligence. It's cope. The real reason you're not good at it is because you're lazy and you didn't try hard enough. Which is way worse, in my opinion
such a problem because it’s much easier to optimise for pure output in the short term (by just cranking input hours) but then you only get linear (or even sub linear) output scaling without genuine productivity innovations that make the scaling factor on that input higher, but those require much more non-predictable thinking time to invent and so are hard to fund & wait for
Mathematicians and physicists will often report needing to take significant meandering time away from work to actually produce results
For example, Einstein’s famous love of long walks or more recently, Fields Medalist June Huh
So yes, this very much checks out
Working 100 hours a week is characteristic of jobs where you “work” very little, but need to always be on call (think: investment bankers). Fields that require deep creative work or technical precision usually get 4 productive hours each day. Agents moved SWE from (2) to (1)
I think at that point it’s called being honest about the things that matter and playing the long game (feels good to be gassed up in the short term but over the long term, as reality plays out, you look back and realise what the sycophants were doing, then respect the honest ones more)
@sharpblue Oh yeah it’s been almost the same for me, I’m maybe working a little more actually because I can get through so much more with agents doing the grunt modelling work but I’m working more because I’m enjoying it!
996 is extremely lame—way to demonstrate you’re a sexless automaton grinding out low IQ ops tasks, anyone with a brain knows you need grass touching time for good ideas
Finally someone is putting the preference for being AWAKE and ALIVE in favorable terms, you ‘live’ longer if you sleep less, and you live longer youthful years at that. Stay Woke! You needn’t optimize for lengthening your 80s and 90s!
@VirtualElena 'Life' extension: 60 supplements a day, umbrella everywhere, medication aplenty. +1.5 life years.
Life extension: Sleep 50% less. Time living up 16.67%.
@VirtualElena@cremieuxrecueil can someone please make a visual on this of the life years traded off across ages too? e.g. Adding 2 extra hours of sleep to your 20s and 30s to gain what in your 80s and 90s?
the problem is the use of the word ‘working’ and its many interpretations. e.g. anyone who works in deal-based work will report often working 7 days a week if you press them but it’s because they’re excited about the deal, deal fever etc etc , it’s not the same ‘work’ as sitting behind a computer taking orders and executing
If someone is telling you to do the latter 996 and you don’t enjoy it, please run