Live data from Hacker News

10x (engineer, context) pairs

benkuhn.net

81–90 of 132 posts

Re: 10x (engineer, context) pairs

#81
post #4

Yeah, there are plenty of fake 10x engineers out there, or temporary 10x-ers who are only doing well because of their working environment. But I have worked with a few people who were clear 10x engineers. Everything they worked on they did better and faster and cleaner. They could often solve problems that other skilled people couldn't even get started on. Yes, they usually picked important and impactful things to wo…

> Everything they worked on they did better and faster and cleaner. They could often solve problems that other skilled people couldn't even get started on.

They may have actually closed tickets 10x faster (which I doubt), but that wasn't providing 10x the value to the company. If there was one person who was resolving 10x the issues of everyone else, that person would be a (very overworked) legend. And I doubt they could keep it up. But it isn't like the company they work for will make 10x the revenue or produce software that is ten times better than the previous version.

The person you're describing is good at their job. There's no need for a number. We don't describe fast food workers as "10x fry cooks", even if they are faster than everyone else in the kitchen.

Re: 10x (engineer, context) pairs

#82
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've found different. 10x engineers differentiate with normal people by lacking brain fog. They see solutions with utter clarity, sharpness and speed. This is very different from originality. They are just able to see the most logical solution while most engineers have to wander through fog to find it and many times they just can't peer past the fog to see it. This may appear like it's originality but it is not. The…

Von Neumann and Einstein's contributions to humanity are incomparable to a 10x engineer. I don't think metrics such as productivity (which 10x crudely approximates) can begin to address this level of innovation. Both unquestionably drove paradigm shifts in scientific and mathematical thinking. It's not measuring the same thing. A 10x engineer might be compared to a full tenured professor with a high citation count. E…

Yes they are at the top of their game, but you can certainly map differences from the top end of the spectrum to another part of the spectrum.

The difference between Von Neuman and a 10x engineer is vast. However the Delta between Einstien and Von neumann vs. the Delta between a 10x engineer and a regular engineer is a mappable concept.

You can do this with the "spectrum" of numbers too.

    |100010 - 1000000| = 10
    | 10 - 0 |         = 10
The delta is the same even though the first set of numbers is vastly larger then the second set. Maybe pretending those numbers are IQ points will help illustrate the concept better.

I would expect a 10x engineer to realize the above automatically without elaboration... jk.

Re: 10x (engineer, context) pairs

#83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've found different. 10x engineers differentiate with normal people by lacking brain fog. They see solutions with utter clarity, sharpness and speed. This is very different from originality. They are just able to see the most logical solution while most engineers have to wander through fog to find it and many times they just can't peer past the fog to see it. This may appear like it's originality but it is not. The…

Are you sure it's intelligence? The great engineers I know have done it all before. They've worked on similar problems. They're not really breaking new territory. I think this is where being 'prolific' matters. Beethoven was a genius, but it makes no difference that he was smart if he didn't spend years and years just 'writing' music, transposing, experimenting etc.. That's the advice big composers give today i.e. 'y…

Domain knowledge definitely is a factor. I guess you can call the people with domain knowledge 10x engineers, but there is a different class of engineers who have raw intelligence that make them a class well above those with only domain knowledge.

Re: 10x (engineer, context) pairs

#84

The title of the article is "10x (engineer, context) pairs" and the submitted title is... clickbait-y.

Yes. We've reverted the title now (submitted title was "On the myth versus reality of ten-x engineers").

"Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: 10x (engineer, context) pairs

#85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what the parent meant was that “true” 10x engineers can apply their skills to a wide variety of problems, and it isn’t just applicable to a narrow problem domain and/or for a very short period. This makes clear he isn’t talking someone who just happens to be specialized in a specific codebase or one specific problem, for example.

Most companies won’t have structure to accommodate such generalists anyway so they will get pissed or bored and quit so you probably should look for “fake” ones then.

Perhaps they are consultants who gig hop?

Re: 10x (engineer, context) pairs

#86
post #4

Yeah, there are plenty of fake 10x engineers out there, or temporary 10x-ers who are only doing well because of their working environment. But I have worked with a few people who were clear 10x engineers. Everything they worked on they did better and faster and cleaner. They could often solve problems that other skilled people couldn't even get started on. Yes, they usually picked important and impactful things to wo…

> The only downside of working with them is going home and looking in the mirror and wondering why you can't match their pace.

One could imagine a society expending not insignificant proportion of GDP on R&D towards human cognitive enhancement. Same society could allow anyone to volunteer for the corresponding enhancement programs.

If one starts to ponder why we don't live in such a society, one is led to reconsider major incentives governing our public sphere and key institutions.

I don't think in the end there is a rational excuse for obvious lack of government-led or private-funded research into nootropics, neurophysiology of exceptionally bright individuals, and non-therapeutic gene therapy. The amount of research done so far is laughable, compared to obvious transformative impact in case of a breakthrough. As a "tech worker" and as a taxpayer I have to admit that the current nexus of large-scale sociopolitical trends is aggressively coercing me to spend my individual and very limited peak of energy, competence, intelligence and willpower towards advancing mostly deadbeat goals of the attention economy.

The small (in absolute terms) fundamental physical difference between the best and merely good enough should not be an insurmountable abyss we take it for.

I don't want to be a 2x engineer for your corporate monstrosity or yet another fast-growing CRUD app. I want to be a 2x engineer putting in meaningful work towards implementing the timeline where anyone, myself included, could become a 10x or a 100x engineer by undergoing affordable and safe gene therapy.

Re: 10x (engineer, context) pairs

#87
post #62

A 2nd edition of Peopleware summarises it; the 10x programmer is not a myth, but it's comparing the best to the worst; NOT best to median. It's also not about programming specifically; it's simply a common distribution in many metrics of performance. The rule of thumb Peopleware states is that you can rely on the best outperforming the worst by a factor of 10, and you can rely on the best outperforming the median by…

Can someone explain why this has been downvoted? It seems like a genuine insight backed by a study.

Technically it’s not backed by a study, but by the personal observations of a pair of engineers who started a consulting firm with the goal of helping other companies succeed at engineering. After doing that for twenty or thirty years, they wrote Peopleware to try to put to paper everything that they had learned.

The 10× number was intended to be qualitative rather than quantitative. They openly acknowledge that there is no one single measure of productivity by which all engineers can be measured, but point out that productivity does vary quite a lot from person to person, and that you shouldn’t expect engineers to be fungible. If you have a 10× engineer, you should do your level best not to lose or misuse them; replacing them might involve hiring a lot of people. That includes not just paying them more, but also allowing them to choose what they work on. Salary is an extrinsic motivation, but choosing what to work on is an intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivations trump extrinsic every time.

They also take the time to point out that productivity cannot be the only way that you value the people in your engineering teams. For one thing, not everybody in an engineering organization is actually an engineer, and they matter just as much. Even the project and people managers matter a lot to the ultimate success of an engineering project.

They also point out that there are very frequently team members who are average or below average engineers, but who still manage to improve every team that they are a member of. They’re the ones with non–engineering skills that they use to bring the team together, get everyone to like each other, build esprit de corps, etc.

A lot of advice in the book will seem quaint by today’s standards. For example, there is a whole chapter about offices. It recommends putting no more than two or three people in a single office, and recommends that part of that space be used for communal furniture like couches, coffee tables, bookshelves, etc. Engineers should design those offices themselves, drawing on a pool of real estate and furniture owned by the company. The offices used by an engineering team should all be near each other, but not near the offices of their managers, lest the managers get the idea that they are supposed to be involved in the engineering in any way. Of course today most companies would rather cram hundreds of people into a crowded and noisy open–plan office. On the other hand, it is possible today to do good engineering work from home, and not need offices at all. That wasn’t possible at all in the 80’s when Peopleware was written, let alone the 60’s.

But the insights about building high–functioning teams by understanding the individual people that those teams are made of are timeless.

Re: 10x (engineer, context) pairs

#88
post #6

There’s 10x in almost every profession, why is engineering different? If you take physicists with Ph.D. plus 3 years of post-doc as the baseline, of course top physicists are 10x the baseline. And don't interpret the 10x in a superficial silly way which makes post-docs stronger than Einstein. This goes the same in sports, arts, academics, etc. As long as the field has enough depth for growth, the top players can easi…

You mention sports. I don't think most sports have a 10x difference between the worst and best professional athletes. Being 10 times faster or 10 times stronger is beyond human limits.

Re: 10x (engineer, context) pairs

#89
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there are plenty of fake 10x engineers out there, or temporary 10x-ers who are only doing well because of their working environment. Isn’t that just really obvious truism that someone who is hyper specialized and really good in one area say video codecs is probably not a 10x’er in frontend dev? Doesn’t make it fake, still a jackpot as far as employers and probably coworkers are concerned. Unless you’re someone like…

i think the major advantage is much more rooted in general problem solving ability familiarity might be able to give you 1-2x edge but 10x+ comes from raw problem solving skill and research aptitude

From the ones I've witnessed it's pure focus and endurance.

They are intelligent but so are many of their less impressive peers. They do have problem solving skills but most developers develop the same problem solving vocabulary after few years. They however don't chit chat much when they work, don't wander away to unrelated activities (like hanging out over here in worktime) and if disrupted recover their focus quickly.

Re: 10x (engineer, context) pairs

#90
post #88
post #6

There’s 10x in almost every profession, why is engineering different? If you take physicists with Ph.D. plus 3 years of post-doc as the baseline, of course top physicists are 10x the baseline. And don't interpret the 10x in a superficial silly way which makes post-docs stronger than Einstein. This goes the same in sports, arts, academics, etc. As long as the field has enough depth for growth, the top players can easi…

You mention sports. I don't think most sports have a 10x difference between the worst and best professional athletes. Being 10 times faster or 10 times stronger is beyond human limits.

> I don't think most sports have a 10x difference between the worst and best professional athletes.

Aggregate productivity metrics are...difficult. But if one assumes that salaries are roughly proportional to value produced, it's not uncommon to have >10:1 ratio in the top professional tier of a sport, much less the whole of a professional sport.

E.g., the NFL has about a 25:1 ratio https://www.comparably.com/salaries/salaries-for-nfl-footbal...

MLB has a 700k minimum salary, a 1.1M median salary, a 4.4M mean salary, and a top salaries of $43.3M (that's a more than a 6:1 mean to minimum, and almost a 10:1 maximum to mean ratio, and over 60:1 overall ratio.)

https://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Minimum_salary

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2021/04/16/ap-stud...

https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/rankings/average/

> Being 10 times faster or 10 times stronger is beyond human limits.

“Fast” and “strong” measured in ways in which this is true are contributors to value produced, but not the measure of value produced by a player. A wide receiver that is the same in all other ways but runs half as fast as the fastest in the league isn't contributing half as much value.

Post reply on HN