"Incredulity is tempting. In the spirit of Chris-R in The Room, you may object, “Ten times as much? You want ten times as much, Bryan? You know what? I haven’t got ten times as much!” But my advice is usually far more practical than it sounds, because most people who “want to succeed” barely lift a finger most of the time."

If I'm not one of those people your advice is bad and doesn't apply.

If I'm already committing one or two hours a day to something, this advice can't possibly be valid. Is this whole article veiled "you're all lazy, do better?"

▲

kristianp 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'd say that there could be two interpretations of 1-2 hours:

- If it's your main goal in life or career it is not enough.

- If it's a hobby or side interest, it's probably 10x what most people would do in a hobby.

	▲	knollimar 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		my point is the advice is just factually false in most cases. Maybe it's just hyperbole, but the article's advice is wholly inappropriate for someone actually trying to improve If it's a career, you literally cannot do 80 hours per day. If it's not your career, if you aren't trying for at least an hour, an imbecile would understand they're not trying. No one tries to learn a language and is confused that they're not learning it fast enough; they know they can put in more effort. ------------------------------------------------------ The person having incredulity is not the same person who isn't trying on their goal.

▲

love2read 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

One or two hours a day is nothing.

	▲	knollimar 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		yes but 10 hours a day + job + sleep is already more than 24 hours if you don't compromise on one of those