5 ms·

What if you described linear algos as being 10x faster than quadratic ones? The 10X meme is both too extreme, by implying that Fabrice Bellard could kick out s

What if you described linear algos as being 10x faster than quadratic ones? The 10X meme is both too extreme, by implying that Fabrice Bellard could kick out simple crud tasks at 10X the speed I do, and not extreme enough, suggesting that I could build ffmpeg and qemu the same as Fabrice if I was just given more time. And also, the 10x meme, and how it’s often used, implies that skills are interchangeable. Should a great database internals expert be able to build a great micro-services architecture? Earlier post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32600331 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32600331

jasode 4y ago
>The 10X meme is both too extreme, by implying that Fabrice Bellard could kick out simple crud tasks at 10X the speed I do, and not extreme enough, I understand your point and I think it just reinforces the fact that the "10" in "10x" should not be literally parsed as a number. My previous comment about the common conversational usage of "10x" is just a synonym for "much smarter than average": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13753178 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13753178 Another example of a random comment where "10x" does not literally mean "mathematically multiplied 10 times": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28784181 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28784181 It was just another example of "10x" as a short way to type out "significantly better" and the "2x" as a synonym for "slightly better".
- adamgordonbell 4y ago
  This is a good point. If people used 10x to just mean: 'this person has a different magnitude of skill in a game changing way' then the term makes sense. It clarifies that it doesn't mean that its 10x faster at tasks, like the original 10x study was about, but more just a shorthand for being of a different class of skill level.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  This makes it sort of trivially true, though. Our scale of what skill looks like is naturally normalized to typical human capabilities, and “much” is a a point on that continuum. If we’re going to talk about talent on a scale that is normalized to typical human abilities, IMO it would be better to assume talent distributed on a Gaussian and talk about n-sigma talents. We’ll end up sounding like Jack Donaghy though I think.
CuriouslyC 4y ago
If you were given unlimited research time, why couldn't you build those things?
- adamgordonbell 4y ago
  I'd like to run this experiment :) but yeah, I get your point.
trashtester 4y ago
> ...suggesting that I could build ffmpeg and qemu the same as Fabrice if I was just given more time. The way I see it, 10x programmers have something (or things) that most programmers lack. Usually some combination of raw intelligence, creativity and dedication, often combined with a much deeper understanding of theoretical fundamentals than other developers. > And also, the 10x meme, and how it’s often used, implies that skills are interchangeable. Should a great database internals expert be able to build a great micro-services architecture? As I indicated above, I think being a 10x programmer is not so much about learned practical skills as having innate talents, and then making use of them. Such talents can be surprisingly transferable between technical domains. I know of cases where a developer unfamiliar with both a codebase and the language it was written in can, within an hour or two, identify bugs and vulnerabilities that the dev team spent months failing to find/fix. I think one aspect of this is the ability to break ANYTHING down to first principles, when needed, without losing sight of the whole.
- ilyt 4y ago
  > I know of cases where a developer unfamiliar with both a codebase and the language it was written in can, within an hour or two, identify bugs and vulnerabilities that the dev team spent months failing to find/fix. I've found that stuff like that was way easier once I touched few languages that promoted different paradigms (some low level, some high, object oriented, functional/lisp etc). It makes it much easier to see difference between "programming" and "programming language"
  - MBCook 4y ago
    Agreed. Playing with other languages for fun, even just for a very short time, really helps make that divide clear. Especially languages that are very different in some significant way than what you’re used to.
- tonightstoast 4y ago
  For building things I find that that “skill” to be powering through uncertainty. Some people are constantly in analysis paralysis and it is a struggle to watch them code something that isn’t completely outlined.
robotresearcher 4y ago
Just read it as 10X better rather than 10X faster, and the implied linearity in results goes away. A 10X better engineer can do things others can not do.
- ItsMonkk 4y ago
  I've made the analogy before that there are tasks that are like walking, and tasks that are like weightlifting. If you give someone a task of a marathon, someone could complete it in 2 hours and another person 6-12 hours, but they both finish. If you give someone the task of lifting 500 pounds, it will never get done by most people. Accidental complexity leads to more accidental complexity. When small errors early on build exponentially, you need to find those that can do so with minimal mistakes.
eldritch_4ier 4y ago
By this logic, there's no 10x any profession. This is all just semantics at this point.

jasode 4y ago

>The 10X meme is both too extreme, by implying that Fabrice Bellard could kick out simple crud tasks at 10X the speed I do, and not extreme enough, I understand your point and I think it just reinforces the fact that the "10" in "10x" should not be literally parsed as a number. My previous comment about the common conversational usage of "10x" is just a synonym for "much smarter than average": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13753178 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13753178 Another example of a random comment where "10x" does not literally mean "mathematically multiplied 10 times": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28784181 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28784181 It was just another example of "10x" as a short way to type out "significantly better" and the "2x" as a synonym for "slightly better".

adamgordonbell 4y ago
This is a good point. If people used 10x to just mean: 'this person has a different magnitude of skill in a game changing way' then the term makes sense. It clarifies that it doesn't mean that its 10x faster at tasks, like the original 10x study was about, but more just a shorthand for being of a different class of skill level.
bee_rider 4y ago
This makes it sort of trivially true, though. Our scale of what skill looks like is naturally normalized to typical human capabilities, and “much” is a a point on that continuum. If we’re going to talk about talent on a scale that is normalized to typical human abilities, IMO it would be better to assume talent distributed on a Gaussian and talk about n-sigma talents. We’ll end up sounding like Jack Donaghy though I think.

CuriouslyC 4y ago

If you were given unlimited research time, why couldn't you build those things?

adamgordonbell 4y ago
I'd like to run this experiment :) but yeah, I get your point.

trashtester 4y ago

> ...suggesting that I could build ffmpeg and qemu the same as Fabrice if I was just given more time. The way I see it, 10x programmers have something (or things) that most programmers lack. Usually some combination of raw intelligence, creativity and dedication, often combined with a much deeper understanding of theoretical fundamentals than other developers. > And also, the 10x meme, and how it’s often used, implies that skills are interchangeable. Should a great database internals expert be able to build a great micro-services architecture? As I indicated above, I think being a 10x programmer is not so much about learned practical skills as having innate talents, and then making use of them. Such talents can be surprisingly transferable between technical domains. I know of cases where a developer unfamiliar with both a codebase and the language it was written in can, within an hour or two, identify bugs and vulnerabilities that the dev team spent months failing to find/fix. I think one aspect of this is the ability to break ANYTHING down to first principles, when needed, without losing sight of the whole.

ilyt 4y ago
> I know of cases where a developer unfamiliar with both a codebase and the language it was written in can, within an hour or two, identify bugs and vulnerabilities that the dev team spent months failing to find/fix. I've found that stuff like that was way easier once I touched few languages that promoted different paradigms (some low level, some high, object oriented, functional/lisp etc). It makes it much easier to see difference between "programming" and "programming language"
- MBCook 4y ago
  Agreed. Playing with other languages for fun, even just for a very short time, really helps make that divide clear. Especially languages that are very different in some significant way than what you’re used to.
tonightstoast 4y ago
For building things I find that that “skill” to be powering through uncertainty. Some people are constantly in analysis paralysis and it is a struggle to watch them code something that isn’t completely outlined.

robotresearcher 4y ago

Just read it as 10X better rather than 10X faster, and the implied linearity in results goes away. A 10X better engineer can do things others can not do.

ItsMonkk 4y ago
I've made the analogy before that there are tasks that are like walking, and tasks that are like weightlifting. If you give someone a task of a marathon, someone could complete it in 2 hours and another person 6-12 hours, but they both finish. If you give someone the task of lifting 500 pounds, it will never get done by most people. Accidental complexity leads to more accidental complexity. When small errors early on build exponentially, you need to find those that can do so with minimal mistakes.

eldritch_4ier 4y ago

By this logic, there's no 10x any profession. This is all just semantics at this point.