The first twelve paragraphs boil down to: * Qualified software engineers are hard to find, it's like hunting or detective work, but they do exist. Not really a

The first twelve paragraphs boil down to: * Qualified software engineers are hard to find, it's like hunting or detective work, but they do exist. Not really a myth-shattering revelation, I think we all agree with this. * People are afraid of the unknown. This applies to hiring practices. Sure, nothing new here. * Interviewers do not ask the right questions. OK, what kinds of questions are "not right", why, and what would be the better approach? * Companies standards are too high. They do not need a team full of geniuses. Not sure I agree, have any evidence or supporting arguments? It is admittedly hard to measure, but most of the evidence from people who actually work with them points to the 10x or 100x engineer being a reality. Hiring that guy is a much better investment. The next section (10 paragraphs): * Candidates can come from anywhere. Sure, nothing new about that. * Networking and legwork are the staples of a successful career in recruiting. Nothing new here either. And the next (14): * For a recruiter, finding an engineer is like finding the "very few really big fish" among a whole bunch of sharks. Wait, doesn't this contradict what we said earlier? * Those looking to hire need to drop their false requirements like Ivy League schools, moral character. Hm. OK. Other than obviously exceptional anecdotes, why are these bad? Any other false requirements? How are we supposed to filter candidates? The final section (8 paragraphs): * Startup culture is often unhealthy. Run it like a business. OK, I suppose I agree with this in principle. But the opposite it true too: business environments can be unhealthy too (Office Space-esque?). What makes each unhealthy and how do we combat this? * People are afraid of the unknown. Did'nt we already do this one? * Ageism and sexism are related to this fear. OK, sure. What do we do about it? How do we combat that fear? Also, not new or myth-shattering. ---- The title reads like it should be a persuasive piece, but I think it is mostly fluff and history. It has a number of unsupported positions and suppositions thrown in, but many of the ones that ring true are nothing new and do not "shatter the myth". What about the real issues that created this so-called myth? How do you address FizzBuzz problem: a majority of applicants fail to meet the most basic of "can you do the job" type of requirements? How do you account for atypically high salaries? What about the large amount of head-hunting happening at places like Google and Facebook? If there is no shortage of good engineers why can't these extremely attractive companies seem to find enough of them? I have been in several teams full of both, the 10-100x engineers, and the good-enough engineers. The former have outperformed the latter in profit and productivity every time. My experience is that it is very hard to find the engineers that make up the 10-100x teams and this article has done almost nothing to shatter that "myth".