How to be a -10x Engineer • Hacker News Board

Re: How to be a -10x Engineer

#491

Post by Herval_freire » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 7:02 PM UTC

The_Colonel wrote: post #490

Herval_freire wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another thing to think about is how basically every human trait follows a normal distribution. If mean = 1x (by definition 1x should be the mean) and the std is the maximum possible value (also 1x). Then 10x would be 10 std past the norm. This makes my numbers not arbitrary. 2x or 3x would only be 2 or 3 std past the norm. Which is reasonable (only if the std = 1x which is likely not the case and is most likely lower…

> ...and the std is the maximum possible value (also 1x). Then 10x would be 10 std past the norm. Sorry, but this is a completely arbitrary definition and honestly one I've never seen so far.

It's not arbitrary. Theoretically the max range of the std is infinite. However because the input values are limited in range the std also becomes limited. You're thinking of it in terms of an infinite range from negative infinity to positive infinite. In terms of what we are dealing with practically things like IQ, height or engineering effectiveness are on a scale of 0 to infinite.

So for IQ, or height, no one can have negative or zero height. This limit effectively limits the std. It is not arbitrary. Try it.

For a distribution of integers on a range from 0 to infinite, let's say the mean is 1. The std will also have a maximum value of 1.

If you add extreme data points to change std, you will also change the mean.

This makes sense right? If you add say 9999999 to a distribution of numbers to keep the average the same you have to counterbalance it with a -9999999 or something like that. But however because the domain is limited from 0 to infinite you can't do that. So effectively the maximum value of the std is the mean itself assuming that the system is normally distributed.

Re: How to be a -10x Engineer

#492

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 7:11 PM UTC

Herval_freire wrote: post #491

The_Colonel wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...and the std is the maximum possible value (also 1x). Then 10x would be 10 std past the norm. Sorry, but this is a completely arbitrary definition and honestly one I've never seen so far.

It's not arbitrary. Theoretically the max range of the std is infinite. However because the input values are limited in range the std also becomes limited. You're thinking of it in terms of an infinite range from negative infinity to positive infinite. In terms of what we are dealing with practically things like IQ, height or engineering effectiveness are on a scale of 0 to infinite. So for IQ, or height, no one can…

> So for IQ, or height, no one can have negative or zero height.

For height, sure, but since IQ scores are defined by the standard deviation of 15, a negative score is possible (you’d expect a single-digit number of people in the world population to have such scores.) Not sure if the typical test resolution is sufficient to distinguish that, though.

Re: How to be a -10x Engineer

#493

Post by The_Colonel » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 7:18 PM UTC

Herval_freire wrote: post #491

The_Colonel wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...and the std is the maximum possible value (also 1x). Then 10x would be 10 std past the norm. Sorry, but this is a completely arbitrary definition and honestly one I've never seen so far.

It's not arbitrary. Theoretically the max range of the std is infinite. However because the input values are limited in range the std also becomes limited. You're thinking of it in terms of an infinite range from negative infinity to positive infinite. In terms of what we are dealing with practically things like IQ, height or engineering effectiveness are on a scale of 0 to infinite. So for IQ, or height, no one can…

Your interpretation that "10x engineer" has to mean 10 standard deviations is completely arbitrary.

Re: How to be a -10x Engineer

#494

Post by Herval_freire » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 7:27 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #492

Herval_freire wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not arbitrary. Theoretically the max range of the std is infinite. However because the input values are limited in range the std also becomes limited. You're thinking of it in terms of an infinite range from negative infinity to positive infinite. In terms of what we are dealing with practically things like IQ, height or engineering effectiveness are on a scale of 0 to infinite. So for IQ, or height, no one can…

> So for IQ, or height, no one can have negative or zero height. For height, sure, but since IQ scores are defined by the standard deviation of 15, a negative score is possible (you’d expect a single-digit number of people in the world population to have such scores.) Not sure if the typical test resolution is sufficient to distinguish that, though.

Negative IQ? The test should be the definition of IQ, the statistical distribution doesn't define IQ. If the statistical distribution is saying you can have negative IQ but it is fundamentally impossible to score that amount on the test then the statistical model is the one that doesn't make any sense.

In other words the statistical model is not an entirely accurate model of the IQ test. Which to me is what IQ is. If negative IQ exists what does it even mean? These numbers have to have some physical actualization. It doesn't make sense for IQ to be some measure of some factor that's impossible to ever actualize.

That's just my interpretation though. Regardless of this though, it is highly highly unlikely for engineering productivity to go that deep into the negative. It's also fundamentally impossible to have infinite productivity too. The real domain is for sure some fixed range of numbers which makes the std for sure limited by the distance of the mean to the first number in the range.

By this logic, A 10x engineer is analogous to someone with 1000 IQ or 58 feet in height. We have intuitions about this that is inline with the statistical outcomes I outlined above... and it makes sense to apply these intuitions to the concept of 10x engineers.

Re: How to be a -10x Engineer

#495

Post by Herval_freire » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 7:34 PM UTC

The_Colonel wrote: post #493

Herval_freire wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not arbitrary. Theoretically the max range of the std is infinite. However because the input values are limited in range the std also becomes limited. You're thinking of it in terms of an infinite range from negative infinity to positive infinite. In terms of what we are dealing with practically things like IQ, height or engineering effectiveness are on a scale of 0 to infinite. So for IQ, or height, no one can…

Your interpretation that "10x engineer" has to mean 10 standard deviations is completely arbitrary.

I didn't say it has to mean that. 1x is the average. We agree on that. The std can be anything. But the max possible std is 1x. that's all I'm saying.

You can now define the std to be whatever you want up to 1x. So I take the most ludicrously large std then interpret what the term 10x means in terms of the maximum std.

10x is in this case, 10 std from the norm IF 1x was the std. So the 10x concept is ludicrously improbable. The real std is likely much lower than 1x this making the existence of a 10x engineer even less likely.

This isn't arbitrary. This is the definitive interpretation using statistics. Science so to speak. If you like to interpret 10x under some crazy uneven scaling or use some other methodology other then science, be my guest. But such actions wouldn't be conducive of a 10xer would it? Which further supports my point.

Re: How to be a -10x Engineer

#496

Post by crazygringo » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 10:09 PM UTC

ResearchCode wrote: post #464

crazygringo wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> isn't interacting with customers frequently enough to upend their plans every 1-2 weeks. As I said, re-planning is more often than not needed because of technical challenges developers are running into. If one person is going to take 4 weeks to deliver something instead of the expected 2 days, lots of things may have to be rejiggered. But also, yes even "real product driven company with a mature products" are chang…

The good software companies do these projects in the 3-6 month length instead of 1-2 weeks.

No they don't.

They absolutely plan where they want to be in 3-6 months -- they're generally quarterly OKR's -- but the only way they consistently achieve their targets is with weekly or biweekly readjustments.

Re: How to be a -10x Engineer

#497

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 11:49 PM UTC

flumpcakes wrote: post #40

> Ask your team to perform tasks that resemble work. Common examples include presentations, diagrams, and ticket management. I'm as salty as the next guy, but in my experience it has been the sub-par employees who are the ones that don't do this. Ticket management is not busy work, it's a necessity for everyone to keep updated. Presentations and diagrams are tools to communicate. I can safely say that by far the most…

[deleted]

Re: How to be a -10x Engineer

#498

Post by safety1st » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 3:26 AM UTC

austin-cheney wrote: post #156

safety1st wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah that was an interesting read. I like the concept of a -10x engineer because they definitely exist (in my mind it is someone whose work moves you farther away from the project goals, rather than closer to them). But a lot of the bullets sounded like stuff bad managers do, not bad engineers. Off the top of my head these are the most common two "negative engineer" behaviors I have seen 1) Biggest one: an engineer w…

Super subjective. The most common thing I see is developers compensating for this by never writing original code and then demonizing others who do when they cannot read it. By original code I don’t mean config files or glue for frameworks.

Yes and no. I don't think the basics are subjective. A lot of the code which needs to be written basically is framework glue or some CRUD app or something else that doesn't need to be computationally sophisticated or elaborate.

If a developer working on that sort of task A) matches the coding conventions of the underlying framework and B) employs basic use of docblocks to describe things like function signatures, they're 90% of the way to decent, understandable code that someone else can pick up and work with.

It's amazing, though, how many developers will not do those two things unless you drive home that they're mandatory.

They are pretty objective guidelines that I use to "grade" code in my head and it's pretty rare that anyone who follows them produces code that isn't at least a B, and that other people are able to pick up and extend later on without too much trouble.

Re: How to be a -10x Engineer

#499

Post by ResearchCode » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 5:43 AM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #496

ResearchCode wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The good software companies do these projects in the 3-6 month length instead of 1-2 weeks.

No they don't. They absolutely plan where they want to be in 3-6 months -- they're generally quarterly OKR's -- but the only way they consistently achieve their targets is with weekly or biweekly readjustments.

They do, and if you need to adjust a project you don't need 10 hours of weekly planning meetings (the Linux kernel developers don't need it, so your CRUD app developers don't either).

The higher you go, the less agile it gets, because that's a horrible way to develop software, or any high-skill professional service or product.

Re: How to be a -10x Engineer

#500

Post by pl90087 » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 9:08 AM UTC

goblin89 wrote: post #451

JohnFen wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Rewrite it" is almost always the wrong answer, although it can be an overpowering instinct. Personally, through decades of experience, I've learned that when this impulse hits me, I need to consciously remind myself of these truths: 1) The engineer(s) that wrote the offensive code were almost certainly not idiots. The code is probably that way for a reason, even if that reason isn't obvious to me. 2) If I embark on…

I find the argument against rewriting to be like the DRY principle: an oft-misapplied rule of thumb causing much of the unwarranted complexity in software around us. Truth is, the cost of “just rewrite it” is as large as your unit of software architecture. Prefer loosely coupled, cohesive small parts and rewriting to accommodate changed requirements becomes preferable to the alternatives that tack on complexity as la…

The problem could be one level up though. It's not just the implementation of a part that's incomprehensible but the design/architecture of how some of the parts interact.