I appreciate the overall point of the article, but have a gripe. The author (and others) gets it wrong on the original meaning of 10x. A 10x engineer isn't some

I appreciate the overall point of the article, but have a gripe. The author (and others) gets it wrong on the original meaning of 10x. A 10x engineer isn't someone who is 10x as productive as their peers, they are 10x as productive as their worst performing peer. The original study the author links to compares the difference of work between the fastest code and the slowest code. The fast debugger and the slow debugger. When we talk about 10X, it should be about comparing it to the least productive team member - the 1X. There is always going to be a 1X person on the team. That's not bad if the team average is 1.5-2X, but if the average and discrepancy gets large enough, you're going to have the 10-100X team member who gets a lot done. Also, not all work is equal. The 10X engineer who is only 10X in programming may be a 1X in collaboration or documentation. That's not a good dynamic, either. Again, appreciate the point of the article, "build great teams", but we need the 10X person in each task to do that. If the build pipeline is slow and costing us money, I need the best people on the team to go figure that out. And, I need our worst engineer who is still learning to be involved so that they can grow their skills. Become a 1.1x, 1.2x, etc. Hat tip to these articles on 10x engineer studies: https://jasoncrawford.org/10x-engineers https://jasoncrawford.org/10x-engineers https://www.construx.com/blog/productivity-variations-among-software-developers-and-teams-the-origin-of-10x/ https://www.construx.com/blog/productivity-variations-among-...