This is a cool brain hack in that it uses math to convince you that you're not too old to become a master at something.<p>One issue I have with the 10,000 hour rule in general is this: there are approximately 2,088 hours in a work-year not counting overtime. To achieve mastery in your profession would then take less than 5 years. Most professions don't consider someone an expert 5 years into their careers. So does that mean
a) you're not really improving that much in those 5 years
b) there are more conditions to the 10,000 hour rule
c) the 10,000 hour rule is flawed
or d) the evaluation of one's expertise is flawed?<p>Another issue I have with the 10,000 hour rule is the idea of competence and sufficient experience. At what level of experience (in this case, hours) are you competent enough to achieve your goal? If programming, at what level can you create something that solves a given problem. If business, at what level can you successfully run a startup, etc.<p>So if the target changes to "enough experience to achieve a specific goal" then I'd argue one has much more time available to him/her than what this math suggests.