This idea feels intuitively true but it would be useful to see some actual measurement, especially because "fail" is a strong word. The article neither defines

This idea feels intuitively true but it would be useful to see some actual measurement, especially because "fail" is a strong word. The article neither defines it nor does it provide results that would demonstrate it. In short the article is much more speculative opinion than demonstrable outcomes. This isn't just nitpicking. If the intuition here is true then it's important to understand the extent of the problem in more quantifiable detail. The general up skill table doesn't do that, and their simple survey shows a pretty even split, so nothing conclusive there. As a suggestion, the article lists benchmark developments where new hires progress from up skill to simple changes to regular work. This seems like a good starting places to measure how long it takes new hires, remote vs. onsite, to progress through that process.