3 ms·
There is no "10X" touch-typist because a) the performance limit is absolute & relatively low and b) the learning curve is such that it's easy to get to the limi
by e1g 5y ago
There is no "10X" touch-typist because a) the performance limit is absolute & relatively low and b) the learning curve is such that it's easy to get to the limit and plateau. Now let's increase complexity - still typing, but you must translate the text from another language. Increase again - now you're translating poetry. Increase again - the poetry is original Shakespeare. You need to translate into contemporary English approachable to Gen Z, as a script for a TikTok short, referencing memes from current events. There is no doubt that some people will have a combination of talents - in language, typing, copywriting, built-up cultural knowledge, lived experiences - that will make them 10X in such jobs.
The more software development work approaches touch-typing, the less difference between 1x and 10X — strict Jira tickets in, garbage out, maybe slightly faster. Spec-work, and most grunt-work, is undifferentiated and does not benefit from a 10X person. The more your work approaches poetry - such as exercising user empathy, improving the architecture, considering UX, respecting performance constraints, understanding user's jobs to be done, and improving your implementation around that - the more creative space there is for 10X to reveal itself.
- thrower123 5y agoEven with drudge ticket-punching work, there is a vast spectrum of productivity between somebody who is capable and conscientious enough to do it correctly the first time and the person who has to rework everything multiple times because they can't do it right the first time and continue making mistakes.
- dexen 5y ago>There is no "10X" touch-typist Ironically enough your example is flawed: there are documented 10x touch-typists. The realities of the court system place high demands on the typists; the minimum required typing speed is already quite high: trained court reporter or closed captioner must write speeds of approximately 180, 200, and 225 words per minute (wpm) at very high accuracy in the categories of literary, jury charge, and testimony, respectively[1] - and some exceed the minimum and go for 300 wpm. Even better, the official record for American English [is] 375 wpm [2]. Compare that to the average typing speeds around 30 - 40 wpm [3] Granted, the court reporters use specialized input devices (stenotypes) - but hey, the same can be said about highly productive programmers, who use specialized development environments - and sometimes also specialized input devices. -- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stenotype https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stenotype [2] ibid. [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touch_typing#Speed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touch_typing#Speed
- e1g 5y agoYou make a good point that hints at another often-undefined assumption in these discussions - 10X performance vs who, exactly? IMO, it should be vs "a typical peer in that profession". For court reporters, if "a typical peer" is a trained court reporter who averages ~200 wpm, and a superstar is at 300wpm, then it's a 1.5X gain. If a "typical peer" is a regular Joe, then 300wpm would be 10X - but this doesn't feel appropriate because we compare productivity of a "10x developer" vs a "typical developer", rather than vs "an average Facebook visitor".
- dexen 5y agoFair enough. I've had good luck discussing the subject back in 2013: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6464807 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6464807 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6465175 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6465175, with the insightful replies. Wow, reading the discussion from back then shows how much HN changed in spirit.