3 ms·

I don't know how this other point should factor in, but in software especially: Unlike in other types of say, physical labor where a top performer is just a fe

I don't know how this other point should factor in, but in software especially: Unlike in other types of say, physical labor where a top performer is just a few (X) more productive than the average performer -- in software, a top performer can be orders of magnitude (10-100X) more productive / more creative than the average worker. I don't know what exactly contributes to this (intangible knowledge turning into action much more concretely, ability to avoid important pitfalls much more capably, ability to demonstrate correctly much quicker, no dependency on physical action, etc), but I have observed this to be a phenomenon.

lpah4all 7y ago
>> I don't know what exactly contributes to this Proper mental models, tool mastery, love for hyperfocus, brutality of testing, passion for solving interesting, difficult problems, along with the proper work environment involving a proper problem. The same could be said for Andrew Wiles' process of solving Fermat's Last Theorem, tho in a vastly different arena. If I had to nail it down to a single characteristic, it would be obsessive tenacity in the pursuit of a high standard of craftsmanship. From that, all else comes with time.
nikofeyn 7y ago
> Unlike in other types of say, physical labor where a top performer is just a few (X) more productive than the average performer -- in software, a top performer can be orders of magnitude (10-100X) more productive / more creative than the average worker. i don't buy that at all. 100x means that the person could do one day's worth of work that would then take five months for a "normal" engineer to accomplish the same work. that simply isn't realistic. there may be one off cases, but that's a possibility in any field, although you seem to claim otherwise. and "orders of magnitude" implies a lot. 10x is one order of magnitude, and 100x (highly doubtful anyway) is just two orders of magnitude.
- Jack000 7y ago
  I don't believe in 100x engineers, but I've seen 0.1x engineers and some who probably go negative. There's a limit to how badly you can stock shelves, but a bad line of code can (and has) destroyed companies.
ozim 7y ago
I would like to call out bs on premise where in physical labor one cannot be orders of magnitude more productive than the average worker. That somehow only in software it is possible. Playing football, what is so hard about it, you just run and kick the ball right? Then why some players are orders of magnitude better than the others? Even stocking shelves can be optimized if you would like, I bet I could stock shelves after some optimization 10x or 100x faster than average workers. (as a student I was working stacking shelves)
- enitihas 7y ago
  Football players are already compensated on a vastly unequal scale, much more than software, since the difference between a messi and a b league player might be more than anywhere found in programmers. Also football is a creative labor, as every moment poses a problem which is unique, and you have to solve it in real time. If you or anyone can stock shelves 100x faster, and the skill wasn’t copiable easily, they would for sure earn a lot more than the average worker. Hell, they can patent it and earn royalties.

lpah4all 7y ago

>> I don't know what exactly contributes to this Proper mental models, tool mastery, love for hyperfocus, brutality of testing, passion for solving interesting, difficult problems, along with the proper work environment involving a proper problem. The same could be said for Andrew Wiles' process of solving Fermat's Last Theorem, tho in a vastly different arena. If I had to nail it down to a single characteristic, it would be obsessive tenacity in the pursuit of a high standard of craftsmanship. From that, all else comes with time.

nikofeyn 7y ago

> Unlike in other types of say, physical labor where a top performer is just a few (X) more productive than the average performer -- in software, a top performer can be orders of magnitude (10-100X) more productive / more creative than the average worker. i don't buy that at all. 100x means that the person could do one day's worth of work that would then take five months for a "normal" engineer to accomplish the same work. that simply isn't realistic. there may be one off cases, but that's a possibility in any field, although you seem to claim otherwise. and "orders of magnitude" implies a lot. 10x is one order of magnitude, and 100x (highly doubtful anyway) is just two orders of magnitude.

Jack000 7y ago
I don't believe in 100x engineers, but I've seen 0.1x engineers and some who probably go negative. There's a limit to how badly you can stock shelves, but a bad line of code can (and has) destroyed companies.

ozim 7y ago

I would like to call out bs on premise where in physical labor one cannot be orders of magnitude more productive than the average worker. That somehow only in software it is possible. Playing football, what is so hard about it, you just run and kick the ball right? Then why some players are orders of magnitude better than the others? Even stocking shelves can be optimized if you would like, I bet I could stock shelves after some optimization 10x or 100x faster than average workers. (as a student I was working stacking shelves)

enitihas 7y ago
Football players are already compensated on a vastly unequal scale, much more than software, since the difference between a messi and a b league player might be more than anywhere found in programmers. Also football is a creative labor, as every moment poses a problem which is unique, and you have to solve it in real time. If you or anyone can stock shelves 100x faster, and the skill wasn’t copiable easily, they would for sure earn a lot more than the average worker. Hell, they can patent it and earn royalties.