4 ms·

> that uses the phrase 10x but does not provide any way to quantify it Understand your complaint but "10x" is best interpreted as a figure-of-speech and not an

by jasode 5y ago

> that uses the phrase 10x but does not provide any way to quantify it Understand your complaint but "10x" is best interpreted as a figure-of-speech and not an exact mathematical equation. It's just a short & snappy sounding label that's easy-to-say and easy-to-type on the keyboard. (My previous comment about that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13753178 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13753178) We use numerical type phrases without quantitative precision all the time: - He doubled-down on his opinion. (We don't nitpick and ask how can an opinion be quantitatively measured as 2x?) - The old editors like vi/emacs is a million times better than IDEs. (We don't nitpick about where the 10^6 quantity improvement comes from.) - Microsoft decimated the competition. (Some might nitpick that exactly 1/10th didn't get eliminated but Websters Dictionary says that so-called "correction" is wrong anyway: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/the-original-definition-of-decimate https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/the-original-d...) And yesterday, the top comment[1] in "Economics Programming Languages" wrote: - >a new language to be adopted it needs to do something (something reasonably important) 10x better than the competition. Even 2x better is not enough to motivate the disruption of changing languages. Yes, it's hard to measure "10x" in languages beyond synthetic benchmarks. But I think most of us get the idea that "10x" is a just a synonym for "a massive amount" of a fuzzy quality. For some reason, "10x" attracts a lot of extra nitpicking that we don't consistently apply to many other examples ("double-down", "million times", etc). [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28784181 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28784181

BeetleB 5y ago
Most of your examples are commonly used phrases. "10x programmer" is a unique phrase. We don't hear "10x electrical engineer" or "10x politician". Phrases like "decimate", double-down, etc are part of the English language, and is well understood to have multiple meanings. Your other examples (e.g. vi/emacs being a million times better) are examples of random numbers people throw out. Someone will say vi/emacs is a ton better, or an order of magnitude better, or a million times better. Whereas with 10x, it's always 10x. I don't hear people talk about 3x programmers or 20x programmers. The HN comment actually supports my point. You can see how different people are interpreting 10x in the responses. That's the exact same problem we have in this comment thread.
- jasode 5y ago
  >Most of your examples are commonly used phrases. Yes, and "10x" is itself also becoming a commonly used phrase that's getting less tied to the math number 10. This thread's extensive non-quantitative usage from many people is evidence of that. (I'm guessing that in a few decades, the bikeshedding about "10x" will eventually stop and it will be accepted as a non-numerical description like "a million times better") >We don't hear "10x electrical engineer" or "10x politician". The "10x" is relatively new compared to "double-down" but it's spreading out to other uses besides "10x programmer": - "10x manager" : https://www.google.com/search?q=%2210x+manager%22 https://www.google.com/search?q=%2210x+manager%22 - "10x author" : https://www.amazon.com/10X-Author-Level-Left-Behind/dp/1084119919 https://www.amazon.com/10X-Author-Level-Left-Behind/dp/10841... - "10x <various_nouns>" : https://www.hugo.team/10x https://www.hugo.team/10x - "10x" spreading out to company names, etc : https://www.google.com/search?q=10x https://www.google.com/search?q=10x - "10x programming language" : yesterday's HN thread comment example Why do all the above non-mathematical usages keep happening? Probably because "10x" sounds cool. We're witnessing language evolution as it happens. >Whereas with 10x, it's always 10x. I don't hear people talk about 3x programmers or 20x programmers. Sometimes people talk about 100x and 1000x and infinityX to try and emphasize extra rare skills etc. Again, interpreting 1000x literally as 10^3 isn't the intended meaning. And to build on your point... the fact that nobody says "9x programmer" or "11x programmer" but almost always "10x" is actually evidence that it's not trying to communicate exact mathematics.
  - BeetleB 5y ago
    > This thread's extensive non-quantitative usage from many people is evidence of that. Even putting aside comments like mine complaining about the actual number, this thread's extensive use of 10x to mean as many different things is a good reason to avoid the term altogether. The whole thread is just "10x programmers don't exist because X" and "10x programmers exist because Y", where X and Y are unrelated. > "10x manager" All but one of the links in the first page were in the context of SW, or written by people in the SW industry. Many of them explicitly pointed out they derived the phrase from 10x developer. I cannot count this as an independent use of 10x. > "10x author" Written by a tech guy. > 10x <various_nouns>" : https://www.hugo.team/10x https://www.hugo.team/10x Written by a guy who started a SW company. > "10x" spreading out to company names, etc : https://www.google.com/search?q=10x https://www.google.com/search?q=10x Sad, but fair enough. It sounds like 10x is the equivalent of putting 2.0 on everything (and also as meaningless).

by jasode 5y ago

BeetleB 5y ago

Most of your examples are commonly used phrases. "10x programmer" is a unique phrase. We don't hear "10x electrical engineer" or "10x politician". Phrases like "decimate", double-down, etc are part of the English language, and is well understood to have multiple meanings. Your other examples (e.g. vi/emacs being a million times better) are examples of random numbers people throw out. Someone will say vi/emacs is a ton better, or an order of magnitude better, or a million times better. Whereas with 10x, it's always 10x. I don't hear people talk about 3x programmers or 20x programmers. The HN comment actually supports my point. You can see how different people are interpreting 10x in the responses. That's the exact same problem we have in this comment thread.

jasode 5y ago
>Most of your examples are commonly used phrases. Yes, and "10x" is itself also becoming a commonly used phrase that's getting less tied to the math number 10. This thread's extensive non-quantitative usage from many people is evidence of that. (I'm guessing that in a few decades, the bikeshedding about "10x" will eventually stop and it will be accepted as a non-numerical description like "a million times better") >We don't hear "10x electrical engineer" or "10x politician". The "10x" is relatively new compared to "double-down" but it's spreading out to other uses besides "10x programmer": - "10x manager" : https://www.google.com/search?q=%2210x+manager%22 https://www.google.com/search?q=%2210x+manager%22 - "10x author" : https://www.amazon.com/10X-Author-Level-Left-Behind/dp/1084119919 https://www.amazon.com/10X-Author-Level-Left-Behind/dp/10841... - "10x <various_nouns>" : https://www.hugo.team/10x https://www.hugo.team/10x - "10x" spreading out to company names, etc : https://www.google.com/search?q=10x https://www.google.com/search?q=10x - "10x programming language" : yesterday's HN thread comment example Why do all the above non-mathematical usages keep happening? Probably because "10x" sounds cool. We're witnessing language evolution as it happens. >Whereas with 10x, it's always 10x. I don't hear people talk about 3x programmers or 20x programmers. Sometimes people talk about 100x and 1000x and infinityX to try and emphasize extra rare skills etc. Again, interpreting 1000x literally as 10^3 isn't the intended meaning. And to build on your point... the fact that nobody says "9x programmer" or "11x programmer" but almost always "10x" is actually evidence that it's not trying to communicate exact mathematics.
- BeetleB 5y ago
  > This thread's extensive non-quantitative usage from many people is evidence of that. Even putting aside comments like mine complaining about the actual number, this thread's extensive use of 10x to mean as many different things is a good reason to avoid the term altogether. The whole thread is just "10x programmers don't exist because X" and "10x programmers exist because Y", where X and Y are unrelated. > "10x manager" All but one of the links in the first page were in the context of SW, or written by people in the SW industry. Many of them explicitly pointed out they derived the phrase from 10x developer. I cannot count this as an independent use of 10x. > "10x author" Written by a tech guy. > 10x <various_nouns>" : https://www.hugo.team/10x https://www.hugo.team/10x Written by a guy who started a SW company. > "10x" spreading out to company names, etc : https://www.google.com/search?q=10x https://www.google.com/search?q=10x Sad, but fair enough. It sounds like 10x is the equivalent of putting 2.0 on everything (and also as meaningless).