Hacker News Reader

Comment by juvvel | Hacker News Reader

I literally addressed this in my comment.

Do you believe I agree that you addressed “this” in your comment? Or would it be more likely that I implicitly categorized your comment as a practical argument, without really addressing the moral underpinnings in what you’re describing?

For example you place the burden of “learning new things” at the feet of the employer, but you don’t really justify that. Why, in a general sense, can people not learn on the remaining hours of the day?

Your comment is riddled with moral presumption and I think it’s worth figuring out what those are.

And you seem to think it's every human's moral obligation to not only spend the majority of their waking hours at work, but also their free time on making themselves more valuable to corporations. And that's not a moral presumption? Where does that leave time for anything else in life?

Why would learning something new take up all of one's free time?

If you have the secret on how to work 40+ hours, stay healthy, on top of chores and social obligations, have at least a little time for your hobbies, get your 8 hours of sleep, and learn a new profession on the side, please do share. Most people are already fully booked with a fraction of these things.

New profession? My understanding was that we were discussing evolving our existing professional skills to stay relevant in the workforce.

But yeah, I think there are many books on spaced repetition and deliberate practice such that it's hardly a secret.

Besides, does everyone have a right to every single one of those things you've listed all the time? I wouldn't argue so, considering we're talking about people who are providing less value over time to their fellow human being.

When time conflicts exist, you must prioritize, and I would imagine "remain able to contribute meaningfully to society" (with caveats around capability) ends up being more important than, "maintain multiple hobbies".

And no, I don't think people are, generally, perfectly optimizing their time.

So people should not be allowed to sleep properly (8 hours), eat well, exercise, have time for loved ones, keep their area clean (chores), feed themselves properly (prep, cook, cleanup), attend to any other needs simply so that we don't have to inconvenience companies with the task of training up employees in their weak spots? You are either a troll, a young person, or have no family.

Can you imagine a world where all of those things don't take up literally every second of your non-work time?

If you did indeed live in such a world, would your opinion change? If people did indeed have ~30 minutes a few times a week to keep up with their field's growth (and that's all it took), would that matter to you?

Trying to find the theoretical line for you.

I'm really really skeptical about the professional growth you can achieve during mostly unguided ~2 hours a week. Might be enough to read some articles, but not enough to build any marketable skills. ETA: I know very few people who find it enjoyable or sustainable to account for every single minute in their day, humans also need rest and downtime to continue to function.

Why unguided? And why does learning require losing rest and downtime or having to "account for every single minute" of your day?

I'm not sure where you're getting those things, these aren't "either/or" suggestions, but "both/and".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com