On 12/4/24 11:13 PM, DFS wrote:
> On 12/3/2024 8:15 AM, -hh wrote:
>> On 12/3/24 1:15 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 00:05:44 -0500, -hh wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/2/24 9:19 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 20:19:41 -0500, -hh wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ... I can recall doing some 3D FEA work back in 2002 and the best PC
>>>>>> workstations we could get would hit the wall & crash at 4 days.
>>>>>
>>>>> Running what OS? Sounds like Windows rather than Linux or some other
>>>>> *nix.
>>>>
>>>> TBH, I don't really remember many details anymore ...
>>>
>>> Funny, that. Given the era, I’m going to conclude that “I don’t
>>> remember” means “Microsoft Windows”.
>>
>> No, we had Linux in the office, so I can't be definitive.
>>
>> Recall what I said: the 'stolen' workstations came with people.  I was
>> happy to get more bodies and be able to delegate the ankle-biter
>> stuff, rather than to have to add it to my already full plate.
>> There's only so long that one can work 100 hours/week before it takes
>> a toll/ER visit.
>
> Not a chance.  I never buy it when people claim they work 80+ hours per
> week.
>
> 100 hours?  Pure bullshit.  That's 16 hours a day, 6 days a week, plus
> another half-day.

It was 7 days/week, roughly 6:30am-9pm daily. I lasted about 3 weeks
before the body broke down.

> Even a 60-hour workweek is a lot: 10-12 hours per day 5-6 days a week.

Certainly is. That's what I was able to notch it down to after I got
more staff (& after the Doc said "take 3 days off" - I took just 24hrs);
it was stupid but necessary; I still have occasional flare-ups from it.

-hh