2 ms·

I think part of the problem is people are talking past each other. There is clearly a distribution of talent, as you yourself say - Carmack might be a 1000x eng

I think part of the problem is people are talking past each other. There is clearly a distribution of talent, as you yourself say - Carmack might be a 1000x engineer. But that sort of makes the point against the 10x idea. We talk about the idea there's a group of 1x engineers and a group of 10x engineers. 10x engineers are just a phenomenon where an outlier exists in a standard team. IN reality it's quite rare - all those 10xers are employed by Google working in teams of 10x engineers all looking like a 1x engineer. It's only when a 10x engineer stumbles into a 1x team you suddenly see this effect.

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
It's not just relative to the team, it's relative to the industry median. What's the industry median? Does anyone know? People who hire keep reporting that a lot of candidates can barely pass fizzbuzz. 10X compared to that probably isn't that unusual.
- gurkendoktor 7y ago
  I think people on HN and Twitter absolutely overestimate the global industry median. Just to mention one dimension of it: There are many self-deprecating jokes about how 1x programmers use StackOverflow all day. I'd argue that it's actually the opposite: good Google-Fu alone can make you a 10x engineer! Many developers in continental Europe or Asia still struggle with English. They'll get stuck tinkering around for a day when the solution is result #1 on Google.
- JamesBarney 7y ago
  I think fizzbuzz is an interviewing artifact. I've never worked with someone who couldn't write a fizzbuzz. But I've heard lots of stories of people interviewing them. I think the reason is the number of times a developer interviews is reciprocal of his talent. Great developers don't have to interview often. Anyone who has worked with them will vouch for them and they pass most of their coding interviews. Really shitty developers have to interview 100 times before they get a job. So you interview 100x more shitty developers than great ones. * This description is to illustrate a point. I know there are plenty of great developers who interview terribly and shitty ones who interview well, but on average good developers interview better than bad ones.

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago

It's not just relative to the team, it's relative to the industry median. What's the industry median? Does anyone know? People who hire keep reporting that a lot of candidates can barely pass fizzbuzz. 10X compared to that probably isn't that unusual.

gurkendoktor 7y ago
I think people on HN and Twitter absolutely overestimate the global industry median. Just to mention one dimension of it: There are many self-deprecating jokes about how 1x programmers use StackOverflow all day. I'd argue that it's actually the opposite: good Google-Fu alone can make you a 10x engineer! Many developers in continental Europe or Asia still struggle with English. They'll get stuck tinkering around for a day when the solution is result #1 on Google.
JamesBarney 7y ago
I think fizzbuzz is an interviewing artifact. I've never worked with someone who couldn't write a fizzbuzz. But I've heard lots of stories of people interviewing them. I think the reason is the number of times a developer interviews is reciprocal of his talent. Great developers don't have to interview often. Anyone who has worked with them will vouch for them and they pass most of their coding interviews. Really shitty developers have to interview 100 times before they get a job. So you interview 100x more shitty developers than great ones. * This description is to illustrate a point. I know there are plenty of great developers who interview terribly and shitty ones who interview well, but on average good developers interview better than bad ones.