3 ms·

>You probability just never met one of the 10x-ers. You might be right. But I spent 23 years in industry and can think of just a couple people who I might cons

>You probability just never met one of the 10x-ers. You might be right. But I spent 23 years in industry and can think of just a couple people who I might consider to be 10xers... and that's not enough to build all the software that has to be built in the world. >To the outside, them enforcing a productive environment might look like diva behavior. Your examples of chairs, screens, etc - I don't have any beef with that; that's not what I mean by prima donna behavior. What I've tended to see are people who definitely are not 10xers who have somehow got the organization in a stranglehold of toxicity.

fxtentacle 6y ago
In my opinion, most software these days looks like it's built with a lot of duct tape and the bare minimum level of skill necessary. For example, the Slack client could probably be built at 10% the RAM usage, 1% the disk space, 20% the CPU usage, and still be twice as fast. But I totally understand that Slack didn't want to "waste" their A team on an app that's already good enough. Try arguing at FAANG that you'll need your own quiet office for your stuff plus a window and some potted plants to help you stay awake and concentrate. I think you'd be thrown out for "refusing to be a team player". And yes, in my 18 years in IT I have also met toxic hostage keepers. But my impression was that those were people who were highly skilled and have in-depth knowledge of the system. And then somewhere along the way they had a fallout with management and wanted to leave, but the company couldn't hire any suitable replacement. So now both company and employee are stuck in an abusive relationship, for fear of being alone otherwise.
- poulsbohemian 6y ago
  >In my opinion, most software these days looks like it's built with a lot of duct tape and the bare minimum level of skill necessary. Somewhere over the past few years, I came to peace with this point. Because production software tends to be really gross, for complicated but legitimate reasons. In fact, I think the beauty is in keeping something that looks really mangled operating with any degree of success - that is in fact the mark of a successful and functional team, if they are able to keep it all working with any degree of sanity. This is not to say that your second point, about bare minimum level of skill necessary, isn't also incredibly valid. But, I don't blame this on individual workers, but rather on the system (IE: don't hate the player, hate the game). Incentives are to make your money in a phase of the moon and move on. Incentives are to move up or out. Incentives are not to build quality, but to build good enough. So long as that's how the incentives are structured, it's how the game is going to go.

fxtentacle 6y ago

In my opinion, most software these days looks like it's built with a lot of duct tape and the bare minimum level of skill necessary. For example, the Slack client could probably be built at 10% the RAM usage, 1% the disk space, 20% the CPU usage, and still be twice as fast. But I totally understand that Slack didn't want to "waste" their A team on an app that's already good enough. Try arguing at FAANG that you'll need your own quiet office for your stuff plus a window and some potted plants to help you stay awake and concentrate. I think you'd be thrown out for "refusing to be a team player". And yes, in my 18 years in IT I have also met toxic hostage keepers. But my impression was that those were people who were highly skilled and have in-depth knowledge of the system. And then somewhere along the way they had a fallout with management and wanted to leave, but the company couldn't hire any suitable replacement. So now both company and employee are stuck in an abusive relationship, for fear of being alone otherwise.

poulsbohemian 6y ago
>In my opinion, most software these days looks like it's built with a lot of duct tape and the bare minimum level of skill necessary. Somewhere over the past few years, I came to peace with this point. Because production software tends to be really gross, for complicated but legitimate reasons. In fact, I think the beauty is in keeping something that looks really mangled operating with any degree of success - that is in fact the mark of a successful and functional team, if they are able to keep it all working with any degree of sanity. This is not to say that your second point, about bare minimum level of skill necessary, isn't also incredibly valid. But, I don't blame this on individual workers, but rather on the system (IE: don't hate the player, hate the game). Incentives are to make your money in a phase of the moon and move on. Incentives are to move up or out. Incentives are not to build quality, but to build good enough. So long as that's how the incentives are structured, it's how the game is going to go.