3 ms·
That's still missing the key element. While people who are the best at something (cycling, trumpet, archery, programming) could outperform 99.999% of the popula
by scott_s 14y ago
That's still missing the key element. While people who are the best at something (cycling, trumpet, archery, programming) could outperform 99.999% of the population using crappy tools, that's not the point. They don't compete against 99.999% of the population. They compete against the 0.001% of the population who are their peers. And at that level of competition - when everyone is so good, and the margins of victory so slim - they use the best tools they can find.
- bicknergseng 14y agoI suppose that's true in situations where there is a significant advantage to being 1st over third or just being in those top percentiles. Splitting hairs over a topic I didn't disagree with you on from 24 hours ago, but I'd say that sorta breaks the metaphor for this particular situation. There isn't really an advantage to being the world's greatest programmer vs the world's top 1% of programmers. When you get to that level it's all gravy. Which makes me realize I have no idea who the world's best programmer is.