|
|
|
|
|
by t-writescode
602 days ago
|
|
> I've never worked in a role where I feel like working 32 hours a week would deliver meaningfully similar results to working 40 hours. It may be my neurodivergency, but I'm the exact opposite. There's rarely a job where I'm *actually, butts-in-seats working* for 40 hours a week where I would deliver, over a study period of months, more good, correct and helpful work than if I spend less time at work. I could probably technically vomit out more code; but it would be more buggy and have more design decisions that would bite me later (and more possibly sink the company). Of course 20 hours is better than 10 hours; and for most people, 20 hours is better than 30; but is 40 hours better than 30? For a lot of people, I __don't think so__, but I also think those same people have been tricked into a system where they're forced to go beyond their own comfort and maximum operating efficiency just to show their presence and willingness to work. And I think they're harmed in the long term for it. |
|