4 ms·

I don’t think the author understands what a 10x engineer is. It’s not down to tons of research and work. It’s a matter of having a knack for it.

• setr 7y ago
  Often “having a knack for it” amounts to simply having spent more time and effort on the subject. Like in university, I could 10x nearly any other student at programming... almost a direct result of the fact that I actually read man pages, documentation and the longer stack overflow posts. And people would assume I was just somehow inherently good at programming.. but no, I’m awful at it; I just learned to read. And no one will believe it
• raxxorrax 7y ago
  > letting himself become a single point of failure Will always happen if the problem is complex and the org small enough. If you do it voluntarily, you are probably not that a great engineer. But even the good ones fail at some point. Finding someone who can replace you is very difficult in average mid-sized cities. And most problems aren't even restricted to the extremely pluralistic software environments we have and additionally need experience in specific domains.
• jdlshore 7y ago
  The author was responding to a specific (and ridiculous) definition of 10x engineer provided by a VC on Twitter. He makes this clear in the first paragraph of the article. Take more time to understand the context before assuming a lack of understanding.
  • PunchTornado 7y ago
    > As I reminisced I realized that I was, in fact, a 10x Engineer. He doesn't understand what a 10x is. Not even from the tweets.
• enraged_camel 7y ago
  I strongly disagree. What you perceive as a "knack" was often developed by putting in lots of dedicated effort over a long period of time, under the right conditions.