Hacker News Reader

Comment by echoless | Hacker News Reader

Yeah, it would have been better if the article went into detail about its use of the term "invariably". I don't know if the author was just loosely using the term or if he actually meant that she was habitually late.

Still, I don't see that as "unacceptable" behaviour. It's something to be frowned upon for sure and it would be great if she could be punctual all the time, but being the CEO of an incredibly large and diverse organisation, she could be forgiven if she was late due to some other meeting or work-related issues.

Also, remember she's getting only about 4 hours of sleep everyday and practically lives at her workplace, so I doubt she's being late on purpose.

View on HN

I'd suggest it's practically impossible for anyone to get by on 4 hours sleep a day and remain even remotely sane.

Sleep deprivation is classed as torture. Even if you're a Type A personality, 4 hours is not enough to avoid issues with basic cognitive competence (at best) and general mental health (at worst).

See e.g.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sleep-t.htm...

Tell that to my manager :P

There's been a really unfortunate (and pseudoscientific) meme going around in the tech world these past few years, about the supposed abilities of "extremely high-performing people" to make do on little to no sleep. It's possible that Mayer herself buys into this myth, or at least that she cultivates it as part of her personal brand.

While it's true that not everyone requires the exact, same sleep schedule or regimen, there is no human on Earth who can successfully go years and years on 4 hours or less every night. You'll pay that debt eventually, with interest. Maybe not today, and maybe not tomorrow, and maybe 20 years from now. But you'll pay it back. Often in the form of a heart attack, a stroke, or brain damage.

Was anyone claiming that she remains even remotely sane?

I'm with you on all of this. I use the term "unacceptable" as a conditional. If "invariably" actually means close to 100% of the time, then I think it's unacceptable. And if not unacceptable, then certainly inconsiderate.

I am using conditional logic here because, like you, I have no idea what "invariably" really means here. Writers have a tendency to throw around words that sound good, without always considering the true extent of their meaning. As a sometime-writer, I suffer from this problem myself. "Invariably" is a tall claim, which is why I'd like to see the evidence for it before rushing to conclusive judgment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com