Agreed. How do you compare a software project that succeeds with another that fails? Isn't the successful project infinite(X)-ly better? Therefore isn't the

Agreed. How do you compare a software project that succeeds with another that fails? Isn't the successful project infinite(X)-ly better? Therefore isn't the programmer who doesn't fail actually immeasurably better than the one who does fail? If most software projects fail (ests: 55% to 90%), isn't the 10x programmer really just someone who consistently avoids failure? If so, a label like '10x' seems to measure concrete skills that don't really matter, yet fails to measure those abstract skills that really do.