In the NY Times there is a piece recounting the alleged work ethic of Silicon Valley. They start by stating:
Silicon Valley prides itself on “thinking different.” So maybe it makes
sense that just as a lot of industries have begun paying more attention
to work-life balance, Silicon Valley is taking the opposite approach —
and branding workaholism as a desirable lifestyle choice. An entire
cottage industry has sprung up there, selling an internet-centric
prosperity gospel that says that there is no higher calling than to
start your own company, and that to succeed you must be willing to give
up everything.
First, grammatically it is "thinking differently" if one wants to modify how one thinks. If however if it is used as a predicate then "I think different." means somehow that this thing called different is "what" you think.
Now in the 14th Century all students took the Trivium, Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric. Why you may ask. To express themselves to each other clearly and correctly. Now Scholasticism was ending with Ockham and minimalism but this use of language correctly and unambiguously allowed for the development of English Law which may be one of the greatest creations of Mankind. I am not a lawyer for full disclosure.
Now back to the work ethic. Just being busy for 24 hours is meaningless unless you are productively doing something. I managed for a decade to work more than 24 hours a day, traveling to beat the sun to my some two dozen countries. I have seen lawyers book more than 24 hours in a day the same way. But that is a trick.
The question is; what are you producing during that time. Writing code is not "producing", it is effecting and idea. Creating a new system architecture is "producing", whereas writing code to do what you were told to do is akin to typing a Tolstoy novel. You are not Tolstoy, you are a typist. Thus the content of what is produced is critical. It begs the question of a Post Doc performing hundreds of tests for some Principal Investigator. Is that also akin to programming or is value added? Or is that why they are just a Post Doc.
The article continues:
Good grief. The guy is developing an app that lets you visualize how a
coffee table from a catalog might look in your living room. I suppose
that’s cool, but is it really more important than seeing your kids? Is
the chance to raise some venture-capital funding really “the ultimate
reward”?
There are two issues in this statement. First, is another App of any value, period! Fifty years ago one built a better communications system, an improved medical imaging system, an innovative therapeutic, or any other thing that was real, advanced humanity as a whole. But a new App, get real. Second is the issue of who is doing what. In my experience the true start up is one , perhaps two people. There is a visionary, a Founder, and that person assembles a team. That person is the "dream merchant" selling the vision, laying out its implementation, convincing customers, and yes raising money. For the most part every one else is an employee, a follower. Thus this begs the question; do all people have to hustle, or just the leader?
Recently while trying to sort through some possible start up ideas at MIT we had one where the alleged CEO disappeared. I finally found him and the reason was because his wife had a baby and he was taking his Paternity Leave as she was taking her Maternity Leave. My daughter was delivered by me and the Resident and I went back to the Institute and picked my wife and daughter up the next morning between classes. That was fifty years ago. Did not skip a beat. No leave anywhere, and that is truly a Hustle. Today I guess we all get leave, paid and all. Unless you are not in Silicon Valley of course!