3 ms·

To submitter/author high_byte, You're analyzing "10x" with math because you're being too literal. I've commented before that it's just a rhetorical label tha

by jasode 6y ago

To submitter/author high_byte, You're analyzing "10x" with math because you're being too literal. I've commented before that it's just a rhetorical label that rolls off the tongue easily: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13753178 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13753178 And if you still can't make peace with "10x", it still doesn't change the fact that people want to label/categorize the amazing programmers like Linus Torvalds, Fabrice Bellard, etc. -- that set themselves apart from average: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24753594 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24753594

high_byte 6y ago
excellent viewpoint. I can agree with a lot of it, here's my take on it: > It doesn't matter what the label is; any label that attempts to stratify programmers is a "myth". I can agree with this, but the thing is this is true regarding anything nowadays, whatever you say someone, somewhere will find displeasing. the "10x" label however, to my argument, is "10x" worse than other labels such as "star". perhaps you don't take this phrase too literally, but it does sort of "quantify" in people's mind the concept of 1000% productivity, which can be interpreted as unattainable. my goal is to let people accept their mortality - there is some output you can produce which is optimal, 100% or so. it is much more rational to think your output is 10% and you can progress from there. at least in my mind, it is discouraging to say "your 100% is still not nearly enough" I guess the point is - rhetoric speak matters. p.s. I just love sigma-3 programmer. can I get to sigma-5? ;)
darkhorse13 6y ago
Fully agreed. I was always under the impression that "10x" was just a way of labeling insanely gifted engineers with enormous outputs compared to the rest of us. Taking it literally and writing an article with math equations is missing the point (in my opinion).
- high_byte 6y ago
  my intention was for people to set attainable goals for themselves. not to interpret "10x" literally, or mathematically. I did use it figuratively, such that if x = 10%, then you get 100%. I do appreciate the feedback as it helps me formalizing my thoughts in the future.

by jasode 6y ago

high_byte 6y ago

excellent viewpoint. I can agree with a lot of it, here's my take on it: > It doesn't matter what the label is; any label that attempts to stratify programmers is a "myth". I can agree with this, but the thing is this is true regarding anything nowadays, whatever you say someone, somewhere will find displeasing. the "10x" label however, to my argument, is "10x" worse than other labels such as "star". perhaps you don't take this phrase too literally, but it does sort of "quantify" in people's mind the concept of 1000% productivity, which can be interpreted as unattainable. my goal is to let people accept their mortality - there is some output you can produce which is optimal, 100% or so. it is much more rational to think your output is 10% and you can progress from there. at least in my mind, it is discouraging to say "your 100% is still not nearly enough" I guess the point is - rhetoric speak matters. p.s. I just love sigma-3 programmer. can I get to sigma-5? ;)

darkhorse13 6y ago

Fully agreed. I was always under the impression that "10x" was just a way of labeling insanely gifted engineers with enormous outputs compared to the rest of us. Taking it literally and writing an article with math equations is missing the point (in my opinion).

high_byte 6y ago
my intention was for people to set attainable goals for themselves. not to interpret "10x" literally, or mathematically. I did use it figuratively, such that if x = 10%, then you get 100%. I do appreciate the feedback as it helps me formalizing my thoughts in the future.