[nikanj]

There's mountains of broke 30-year olds with no mates who did nothing in their 20s.

We try to maintain a false dichotomy where the alternative to working extremely hard is partying, travelling the world, and of course tons of sex.

Most people don't do either.

[canhascodez]

Even when partying, travel, and sex figure highly in one's alternative lifestyle, you're not necessarily getting anything meaningful done with your life, and probably putting yourself at a competitive disadvantage economically. And you're still either working to maintain that lifestyle, or it is your job, and less fun because of that.

It's not necessarily a false dichotomy, but there ain't no such thing as a free lunch: there are opportunity costs to both paths. If you're dedicated, you can work out a way to fill your hours with travel and hedonism: and then one day you wake up and you're 40, you have no close friends or career prospects, and a worn-out liver.

[jen729w]

I don’t think it’s a forced dichotomy when I contrast literally living in a cupboard and coding for 16 hours a day with having any sort of other existence during potentially the most energetic decade of your life.

[sleepychu]

If you're not going to do something awesome why not work hard?

[sokoloff]

I don’t think you wanted two “not”s in that comment (or else I don’t understand; please expound).

[kevinstubbs]

If you're not going to do something awesome why not work hard?

Broken down:

If you aren't going to do something awesome (like travel a lot), [then] why not work hard [instead]?

[sokoloff]

Ah thank you. I was stuck on a tight linkage between awesomeness and work:

If you're going to do something awesome, why not work hard [to achieve great things]?

or

If you're not going to something awesome, why work hard [because what's the point if it's not awesome]?