dce/davideisinger.com
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Ship dispatch 6

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
David Eisinger
2023-08-06 22:23:04 -04:00
parent df24492a6f
commit fc0bb6ace0
5 changed files with 1398 additions and 33 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

641
static/archive/blog-testdouble-com-krzanb.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,641 @@
[1]Test Double The Test Double logo
Menu
(BUTTON) Menu Menu An icon that displays an illustration of a website
menu
* [2]Home
* [3]Agency
* [4]Services
* [5]Careers
* [6]Blog
* [7]Contact
[8]Blog [9]Posts
The looming demise of the 10x developer
Why an era of enthusiast programmers is coming to an end
An icon of a clock Publish Date
July 12, 2023
An icon of a human figure Authors
[10]Justin Searls
I’ve recently been telling anyone who will listen that I am excited to
be on the precipice of using [11]Sorbet to write a type-checked edition
of [12]Mocktail that has the potential to unlock productivity workflows
never before possible in Ruby.
I’m not there yet.
I don’t want to say it’s been a “quagmire,” but I’m over [13]150
commits in, and there’s a lot left to button up before release. It’s
been a real challenge. Learning Sorbet at all takes a good chunk of
time, to be sure. I’ve also hit a number of thorny edge cases and
elusive bugs along the way (both in the type system itself and that the
type system exposed in my code). And, like usual, I’m trying to do
something that’s never quite been done before, so I’m constantly
oscillating between feelings of nervous excitement and fear that I’m
attempting the impossible. (Though it’s been made far more possible
thanks to the generous assistance of [14]Ufuk Kayserilioglu, [15]Kevin
Newton, and [16]Jake Zimmerman!)
Beyond this, any specifics I might share about my current quest are so
banal as to not be worth your time. (If you somehow find this
interesting, please [17]email me so I might feel less alone in this
world.) That said, there is something generally interesting here that
programmers don’t often talk about. And that’s the deeper question: why
do I keep doing this to myself?
[18]What makes me “special”
I am an enthusiast programmer.
I stumble on a problem like this one and I stay up late every night
until I find the solution. I wake up early each morning with new ideas
of things to try. I don’t take enough breaks, but when I do, they’re
tactically-designed to exploit my brain’s asynchronous processor to
generate solutions for whatever I’m currently stuck on. I irresponsibly
defer responsibilities from other areas of my life. Eventually, I
realize I’m only at the 20% mark and that a pattern is repeating where
a month or more of my life is about to disappear from the calendar.
Towards the end, I find myself rushing to find the maze’s exit because
my desire to unlock the puzzle’s final secret starts to be overtaken by
the shame of all the other balls I’m dropping. It’s excruciating as I
approach that inflection point—as intense as an overbearing manager’s
“do or die” deadlines ever were, except in this case the pressure I
feel is entirely self-imposed.
And then, at some uneventful moment at 4 pm on a Sunday, it’s done.
Sometimes people care about what I made. Usually they don’t. Often,
even I don’t.
I give myself enough time to clear my inbox, tidy the house, and shave.
Then I move onto the next Sisyphean task I’ve laid before myself.
This describes how I’ve lived my life since I was 13 years old, with
few exceptions. And let me tell you, it’s very difficult to juggle a
healthy personal life and a sustainable work life when you’re
simultaneously engulfed in an endless series of side quests to will
every creative curiosity into existence.
When I was a consultant at [19]Crowe, there was one year I billed
clients for nearly 2100 hours, which averages out to more than 40 hours
per week every week of the year with zero days off. And that’s not
counting travel time. Or the half-dozen hours of weekly administrative
work that wasn’t considered billable. Nevertheless, I found time in my
nights and weekends that year to build an app with Apple’s buggy,
mostly-undocumented initial iPhone SDK. The app was a native client to
[20]vBulletin web forums, allowing users to browse threads and compose
replies. Despite knowing nothing about any of the underlying
technologies, I obsessively polished the app to perfection. Did I make
time to sleep? I don’t remember. The whole year’s a blur.
All so that Apple could reject my app because users might post swear
words or dirty pictures. Oh, well. Onto the next thing.
I don’t know what word best describes my behavior above without
inflecting significant value judgment. Perfectionist? Obsessive?
Passionate? Whatever we call this compulsion, it’s hardly an unalloyed
good and it comes with its share of downsides. Nevertheless, it’s one
of a number of idiosyncrasies and character flaws I’ve decided to lean
into and find productive outlets for rather than attempting to repress
or rewire.
Other examples:
* I ruminate endlessly under stress, so I wrest back some control by
manufacturing stress responses over things I’m building to trick my
brain into ruminating on work that’s useful to me. This both
overrides the unhelpful, irrational worries that surround me every
day and unlocks a “second shift” where I accomplish almost as much
away from the keyboard as in front of it
* I’m a terrible listener and struggle with auditory processing,
especially in groups and loud environments. (One reason I talk so
much is that it’s always felt safer to drive the conversation than
risk mishearing and offending someone.) Parsing others’ sentences
often feels like I’m filling in the blanks to make sense of them,
like playing a game of [21]Mad Libs. Over the years, I’ve
redirected this into a source of creativity and humor. Most of my
puns and wordplay are happy accidents as I fill in the gaps in my
own listening comprehension. Some of my most creative ideas are
things I swear I heard someone say when it turns out they were
actually talking about something else
* I’m a really bad learner—disinterested, distractible, and
disagreeable. I’ve never enjoyed learning and generally avoid it,
especially learning for its own sake. At the slightest discomfort
when struggling to understand something, I’ll grasp for any
distraction that might offer me a momentary escape. When I do
manage to get traction, I inevitably find myself disagreeing with
the premise or subversively trying to prove the authors wrong. The
upshot is that once I actually do learn something, I know it cold.
It means I will have scoured every nook and climbed out of every
pitfall. Professionally, this apparent weakness has turned out to
be a superpower. Learning everything the hard way has made me a
natural consultant and mentor. Because I’ve already explored all
the wrong paths, I often know someone is stuck before they do,
understand what threw them off course, and show them how to get
back on track
The reason I landed on this topic today is not that any of the above
makes me special, it’s actually that contradictions like these—whatever
their origin—are so typical among programmers born before 1990 that
they’re entirely mundane.
[22]An aberrant generation of programmers
Squint and everything I just said about myself could have described a
character from [23]The Big Bang Theory or [24]Silicon Valley. I’m at
peace with the fact that on my best days, I’m an overplayed, abrasive
character trope come to life. For decades, we’ve associated a slew of
mostly-negative traits like these with programmers as if the linkage is
inherent and inevitable. I’ve always thought that stereotype was
arbitrary—anybody can learn programming and be great at it—but now I’m
starting to think it’s a product of our times as well.
That is to say, I’ve come to believe the era typified by the enthusiast
programmer—autodidactic, obsessive, and antisocial—is drawing to a
close.
Why do I think that? Because there was a specific, generational moment
that attracted a bunch of people like me into the software industry. It
occurred during the brief window between home computers becoming widely
available and their becoming sealed airtight by platform holders. For a
fleeting moment, computers were simultaneously accessible and scrutable
during a necessary but temporary stage in the maturation of information
technology. Before they were rendered irreducibly complex as consumer
devices, merely using a computer required figuring out a lot about how
it worked. And coming of age with an understanding how computers worked
made programming them far more approachable. And thanks to cosmic
coincidence and the marketing teams of companies like RadioShack,
society unwittingly handed a generation of social mobility to [25]the
boys of upper-middle-class families in the US who felt more comfortable
at home with their computer than outside engaging socially with their
peers. I was definitely one of those awkward, anxious kids and a whole
lot of the programmers I’ve met along the way were too.
But one reason to believe that programmers don’t have to be like this
is that programmers weren’t always like this. I remember asking a
computer science professor in 2003 about our school’s gender disparity
(we only had a single woman in my class, and she later switched
majors). He recounted that before 1990 and the advent of hacker and
gamer subcultures, my college touted robust majorities of women in
computer science. (Nationally, women’s enrollment in CS doubled in a
decade, [26]peaking at 37.1% nationally in 1984 before dropping
precipitously.)
And one reason to believe programmers won’t always be this way is that
there’s plenty of evidence that the next generation of professional
programmers is no longer dominated by enthusiasts. People becoming
software developers today look markedly different than those who came
before. (Sadly, I wish I could say I’m referring to the success of
movements to increase representation from traditionally marginalized
groups—tech is still dramatically over-indexed on white dudes who
enjoyed affluent upbringings.) I’m just pointing to all the money
sloshing around here: it catapulted programming from a firmly middle
class job that appealed to people who really loved computers into a
comfortably upper-middle class profession that attracts anyone who
wants to secure their financial future. Ask anyone who switched careers
in the last decade how many times someone suggested they “learn to
code.” Countless people are entering the industry simply because
programming is a relatively secure, well-paying profession. (And
there’s nothing wrong with that!)
[27]Inter-generational conflict is brewing
I’m not sure if anyone has ever said “OK boomer” to my parents, but I
can imagine it wouldn’t feel awesome to hear.
Nor do I know whether anyone will coin a term to dismiss my generation,
but I have faith that there’s enough societal exasperation out there
for someone on TikTok to come up with something snappy. A lot of people
in my professional cohort still see themselves as social outcasts who
grew up in front of a CRT in their parents’ basements, but I suspect
the next generation sees a homogenous monolith of 40-somethings wearing
hoodies and sandals (with socks!) that lucked their way into capturing
control of the software industry just as it settled into a state of
economic maturity.
Sit with this distinction for a while, and you might start to see these
old-hat programmers as belonging to an Enthusiast Generation, one
that—due to its unique initial circumstances—is unlikely to be
replicated. Once I introduced the word “generation” to my thinking, it
became easier to make sense of many contentious, unresolved issues in
tech that flared up over the past decade by looking at them through the
lens of intergenerational conflict. And just like any discussion of
generations, it’s important to caveat that there are no firm boundary
lines, that exceptions are plentiful, and that many observations will
be isolated to a single locale and culture (the U.S. in this case,
maybe Canada?). The only thing that bucketing people into generations
can do for us is provide a new way to look at how a population may be
changing, thanks to a big enough time-step to perceive the accumulation
of decades of gradual change.
To illustrate, I’ll highlight three high-profile conflicts that make a
different kind of sense when viewed as a generational shift.
[28]Passion
I remember about 8 years ago, people [29]got [30]passionate [31]about
[32]the [33]word [34]passion.
This rubbed me the wrong way at first. Then again, everything does.
I remember thinking, “banning the word ‘passion’ will just lead people
to pick others like ‘self-driven’, ‘highly-motivated’, and
‘ambitious’.” I remember asking, “are we supposed to screen out
candidates for whom programming is a hobby outside work?” What I don’t
remember was pondering whether this was an indication that the times
were changing.
When I entered the industry, my salary was lower than it would’ve been
if I’d gone into accounting, or become an actuary, or majored in civil
engineering—myself and most of the people around me did get into
software because we were passionate about it. Reading tweets and
thinkpieces that suggested “passion” was a four-letter word felt like a
personal affront, so I responded defensively.
What I wasn’t thinking about was what it must have felt like for
everyone who entered the industry expecting their job to be a job but
who found themselves managed by people from my generation who didn’t
leave them room to have a life outside work. Maybe everyone else on the
team worked overtime without being asked. Maybe taking “too much”
supposedly “unlimited” time off would foreclose any chance for a
promotion. Maybe building rapport at lunch required holding evolved
opinions on Emacs vs. Vim, or mechanical key switches, or whatever was
on the front page of Hacker News. That sounds like a pretty miserable
existence, especially if programming isn’t what gets you out of bed in
the morning.
If you allow for the possibility we’re undergoing a generational
change, maybe this debate over “passion” is evidence that the
assumption that most programmers will always be passionate about
programming was mistaken and counter-productive.
[35]Craftsmanship
This brings another contentious word to mind: “craftsmanship.” Its
origin, as I witnessed it, was a reaction to the watering down of the
technical aspects of the agile software movement in the late 2000s in
favor of more lucrative soft-skills training and consulting services.
In case you missed it, most of the craftsmanship meme could be summed
up as a Slow Code movement. There was a lot of talk about measuring
twice and cutting once, establishing apprenticeship programs to train
new programmers, and a million ways to leverage automated tests for
purposes other than testing things.
I was an active participant in this community, speaking at the
[36]conference several times, putting [37]my name on the manifesto, and
generally exhorting anyone who would listen to please make their
software less terrible.
But looking back, the craftsmanship movement wasn’t only about
rekindling the tremendous engineering insights of agile methods like
[38]Extreme Programming, it was also a response to a rapid influx of a
generation of programmers who didn’t care about code quality the same
way we did. There was a sense that serious programmers were under
threat and hopelessly outnumbered by unserious ones. That if your team
didn’t get more disciplined about what you allow in your codebase,
you’d find yourself mired in a maze of complexity, beholden to epochal
build times, and left holding the bag with yet another legacy system.
Thinking about this point of tension as another manifestation of the
generational shift we’re experiencing, it’s easy to spot the problem:
“what you allow in your codebase” is a wee bit too easy to conflate
with “who you allow in your codebase.”
Shibboleths like “test-driven design” were so numerous that, to
outsiders, even perfunctory conversations were riddled with rhetorical
land mines. The emphasis on apprenticeship also carried assumptions
nobody seriously grappled with: that it implied “one true path” to
programming, that somebody (us) had uniquely figured it out, and that
the only way to learn it was to imitate the people who came before you.
I watched more than one conference talk advocating for
professionalizing software like any other trade by licensing
programmers just like we do plumbers, electricians, and [39]Canadian
engineers. Everyone’s intention was to prevent people from writing bad
software, but some of the movement’s prescriptions would have prevented
many people from writing software at all.
[40]10x Developers
Before you say anything, I know [41]you [42]probably [43]already
[44]have [45]an [46]opinion [47]on [48]the [49]idea of a “10x”
developer. If you aren’t familiar, the term refers to
debatably-mythical programmers whose output is worth that of ten other
programmers. What aspects of that output? Which ten other programmers?
Unclear.
The concept behind the “10x” term predates either of the generations of
programmers being discussed here. It seems to have originated in
[50]this (flimsy) 1968 study that among experienced programmers, the
best were ten times more productive than the worst (as opposed to the
average). We remember it because it was referenced in the late Fred
Brooks’ seminal [51]Mythical Man-Month.
That some people are better at their jobs than others is (usually)
uncontroversial. At least, it was, until it bubbled up in The Discourse
during the 2010s as a flashpoint over who the industry chooses to
valorize, often sparked by tweets from people affiliated with venture
capital and advocating that founders should strive to “only hire 10x
developers.”
In response, many people who reasonably identified this framing as
unproductive chose to pick a weird fight by claiming that 10x
developers don’t exist instead. This invited a lot of
counter-criticism, as I think most of us can dream up examples of
people whose work is 1/10th as valuable as their own. From there, the
conversation shifted to counter-counter-critiques enumerating the
adverse knock-on effects of adding a toxic actor to a team, no matter
how much of a ninja/rockstar they are at coding.
And it was here that the conversation settled into a stalemate, with
clear battle lines dividing the two camps. On one side were proponents
who believed a lot of well-compensated programmers aren’t very good,
but that a few programmers are so good that the value they generate far
exceeds the range of a typical payscale (which was why Google used to
brag that they “[52]pay unfairly”). On the other side were critics who
were more than happy to project every negative stereotype about
programmers onto these supposedly hyper-productive ones, suggesting a
10x developer’s easy-to-measure output often came with hard-to-measure
organizational and technical costs.
But now, looking back, this debate would have gone a lot differently if
we’d considered it through the valence of inter-generational conflict.
I’ll come clean: do I believe some programmers are at least an order of
magnitude better at programming than others? In my experience … yes.
I’ve worked with programmers who routinely solve problems in minutes
after I’ve wasted days or weeks on them. I’ve witnessed a programmer
singlehandedly build something in a day that an entire team struggled
to deliver in two weeks—without any of the catastrophic antisocial,
unsustainable downsides one might imagine. I’ve honestly seen more
socially corrosive behavior from the other end of the productivity
spectrum, because programmers who spin their wheels and make zero
forward progress for days, weeks, or months will inevitably scramble
for a way to save face.
It may be uncomfortable to admit, but it’s not altogether unreasonable
to speculate that enthusiast programmers may, in aggregate, outperform
professional programmers who hang up their keyboard at the end of each
shift. In my experience, these traits differentiate the former from the
latter:
* Tireless: spending more time practicing programming—not under
coercion to work long hours, but being intrinsically motivated to
do so—will generally make someone a better programmer
* Tenacious: chasing down answers with limitless curiosity and
relentless, no-holds-barred tenacity—whether or not it’s in their
job description to spelunk open source stack traces or debug other
teams’ code—will yield better information and faster progress
* Thorough: priding oneself on the quality of one’s work and pursuing
excellence in the (brace for it) craft—not falling victim to
perfectionism, but cutting the right corners when necessary—will
produce better-working software that’s easier to maintain
In the context of this generational rift, all three of the above are
exemplified by (but by no means exclusively limited to) us last-gen
models: the individual that programs in their spare time, obsessively
refuses to let a hard problem go, and is personally invested in the
quality of their work product.
I can’t imagine this dynamic feels awesome for members of the new
generation who don’t want to spend more than 40 hours a week at their
computer, or who have significant family commitments, or who aren’t
inclined to asynchronously ponder refactoring techniques as they run
errands. Will they be forever outpaced by more enthusiastic colleagues
for whom “programmer” is an all-encompassing identity as well a career?
I don’t know.
It’s an uncomfortable conversation because it’s an uncomfortable
reality.
[53]What do we do with this?
The power of an analogy lies in what it empowers people to do.
Envisioning programmers as belonging to discrete generations who are
ushering in a dramatic transition in the industry can equip us to
identify the common threads between many of the challenges we’re
currently facing. It may even enable us to predict and plan for
inevitable difficulties in the future, as more members of the earlier
generation age out.
Suppose you’ve read this far and you can buy both these arguments:
1. The next generation of programmers are less likely to be motivated
by a love of programming than the previous generation and may
differ in profound ways as a result
2. Software, as an industry, has structurally organized itself around
the assumption programmers will continue to resemble members of the
outgoing generation
If so, then you can probably imagine there will be a lot of problems to
be solved here. The hot-button issues we revisited above are already
known, even if we failed to put our collective finger on a common cause
at the time. It’s likely that countless more challenges lie beneath the
surface, waiting for the spark that causes them to boil over. It’s up
to us whether we put in the work to uncover and address these problems
proactively.
Here are a few examples of questions I find myself asking after sitting
with this for a few days:
* The new generation is more likely to expect structure and support
from human resources and management, whereas the previous
generation is more likely to find active management (e.g. career
pathing, coaching, goal-setting) actually saps their autonomy and
intrinsic motivation. Can organizations effectively cater to the
needs of both groups?
* It’s an open secret that the industry has no idea how to teach
people to program. Computer Science degrees famously don’t prepare
programmers for the job of programming, which has always been left
as an exercise to the student to figure out on their own time. If
the industry is going to outlive us enthusiast programmers, will it
adopt a sustainable approach to educating the next generation that
doesn’t require people to teach themselves everything?
* Betting your business on a limitless supply of self-starting,
self-sufficient, self-disciplined candidates seems a lot like
investing in the long-term prospects of fossil fuel extraction. How
will companies that built their cultures around enthusiast
programmers adjust to a generation needing more direction, more
support, and more accountability?
All we know for sure is that time keeps marching forward and change is
a constant, so planning for a future that looks different than the past
is usually time well spent.
What challenges do you see in this generational transition? I’d love to
[54]hear from you! If you enjoyed this piece and want to keep up with
what myself and the other agents are up to, you should check out our
[55]monthly newsletter.
[56]Justin Searls
An icon of a human figure Status
Double Agent
An icon of a hash sign Code Name
Agent 002
An icon of a map marker Location
Orlando, FL
[57]Twitter [58]Mastodon [59]Github [60]LinkedIn [61]Website
Related posts:
[62]How to tell if AI threatens YOUR job
Can ChatGPT help do your job? If so, how can you be sure AI won't
eventually replace you? Spot whether your job is at risk and what you
can do about it.
An icon of a clock Publish Date
March 14, 2023
An icon of a human figure Authors
[63]Justin Searls
An icon of a paper organzier Categories
[64]Industry
[65]Career
[66]Never Staff to the Peak
For a decade, engineering leaders were taught to solve every problem
with more full-time hires. There was always a better solution. Are you
ready for it?
An icon of a clock Publish Date
April 3, 2023
An icon of a human figure Authors
[67]Justin Searls
An icon of a paper organzier Categories
[68]Industry
[69]Leadership
[70]How my experience as an engineer made me a better recruiter
How similar are engineers and recruiters? Turns out a lot. A developer
turned recruiter adapted from writing code to recruit those who write
code.
An icon of a clock Publish Date
March 20, 2023
An icon of a human figure Authors
[71]Colleen Leonard
An icon of a paper organzier Categories
[72]Recruitment
[73]Community
Looking for developers? Work with people who care about what you care about.
We level up teams striving to ship great code.
[74]Let's talk
[75]Home [76]Agency [77]Services [78]Careers [79]Blog [80]Contact
[81]Mastodon [82]GitHub [83]LinkedIn [84]Twitter
[85]614.349.4279
[86]hello@testdouble.com
[87]Privacy Policy
Founded in Columbus, OH
[88]Test Double
References
1. https://testdouble.com/
2. https://testdouble.com/
3. https://testdouble.com/agency
4. https://testdouble.com/services
5. https://testdouble.com/careers
6. file:///
7. https://testdouble.com/contact
8. file:///
9. file:///posts/
10. file:///authors/justin-searls/
11. https://sorbet.org/
12. https://github.com/testdouble/mocktail
13. https://github.com/testdouble/mocktail/pull/22
14. https://github.com/paracycle
15. https://github.com/kddnewton
16. https://github.com/jez
17. mailto:justin@testdouble.com
18. file:///var/folders/q9/qlz2w5251kzdfgn0np7z2s4c0000gn/T/L12618-6018TMP.html#what-makes-me-special
19. https://www.crowe.com/
20. https://www.vbulletin.com/
21. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_Libs
22. file:///var/folders/q9/qlz2w5251kzdfgn0np7z2s4c0000gn/T/L12618-6018TMP.html#an-aberrant-generation-of-programmers
23. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Bang_Theory
24. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Valley_(TV_series)
25. https://www.npr.org/transcripts/356944145
26. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_349.asp
27. file:///var/folders/q9/qlz2w5251kzdfgn0np7z2s4c0000gn/T/L12618-6018TMP.html#inter-generational-conflict-is-brewing
28. file:///var/folders/q9/qlz2w5251kzdfgn0np7z2s4c0000gn/T/L12618-6018TMP.html#passion
29. https://starbreaker.org/blog/programmer-passion-considered-harmful/index.html
30. https://www.hotjar.com/blog/the-passion-fallacy/
31. https://web.archive.org/web/20160304021738/http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6523/the_designers_notebook_passion_.php?print=1
32. https://avdi.codes/the-moderately-enthusiastic-programmer/
33. https://philippe.bourgau.net/is-there-any-room-for-the-not-passionate-developer/
34. https://exceptionnotfound.net/passion-not-required-its-ok-to-only-program-for-a-paycheck/
35. file:///var/folders/q9/qlz2w5251kzdfgn0np7z2s4c0000gn/T/L12618-6018TMP.html#craftsmanship
36. https://scna.softwarecraftsmanship.org/
37. http://manifesto.softwarecraftsmanship.org/
38. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_programming
39. https://engineerscanada.ca/become-an-engineer/overview-of-licensing-process
40. file:///var/folders/q9/qlz2w5251kzdfgn0np7z2s4c0000gn/T/L12618-6018TMP.html#10x-developers
41. https://jasoncrawford.org/10x-engineers
42. https://web.archive.org/web/20131205042721/https://medium.com/about-work/6aedba30ecfe
43. https://networkingnerd.net/2019/07/18/i-was-a-10x-engineer-and-im-sorry/
44. https://www.swarmia.com/blog/busting-the-10x-software-engineer-myth/
45. https://erikbern.com/2016/01/08/i-believe-in-the-10x-engineer-but
46. https://a16z.com/2014/07/30/the-happy-demise-of-the-10x-engineer/
47. https://blog.kenforthewin.com/state-of-the-10x-programmer-in-2018/
48. https://web.archive.org/web/20230326131816/https://payne.org/blog/the-myth-of-the-myth-of-the-10x-programmer/
49. https://avichal.com/2011/12/16/focus-on-building-10x-teams-not-on-hiring-10x-developers/
50. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/362851.362858
51. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month
52. https://www.inc.com/jeff-haden/why-google-quietly-uses-power-law-rule-to-pay-its-superstar-employees-unfairly.html
53. file:///var/folders/q9/qlz2w5251kzdfgn0np7z2s4c0000gn/T/L12618-6018TMP.html#what-do-we-do-with-this
54. mailto:justin@testdouble.com
55. https://testdouble.com/newsletter
56. file:///authors/justin-searls/
57. https://twitter.com/searls
58. https://mastodon.social/@searls
59. https://github.com/searls
60. https://linkedin.com/in/searls
61. https://justin.searls.co/
62. file:///posts/2023-03-14-how-to-tell-if-ai-threatens-your-job/
63. file:///authors/justin-searls/
64. file:///categories/industry
65. file:///categories/career
66. file:///posts/2023-04-03-never-staff-to-the-peak/
67. file:///authors/justin-searls/
68. file:///categories/industry
69. file:///categories/leadership
70. file:///posts/2023-03-20-how-my-experience-as-an-engineer-made-me-a-better-recruiter/
71. file:///authors/colleen-leonard/
72. file:///categories/recruitment
73. file:///categories/community
74. https://link.testdouble.com/blog-cta-sales
75. https://testdouble.com/
76. https://testdouble.com/agency
77. https://testdouble.com/services
78. https://testdouble.com/careers
79. file:///
80. https://testdouble.com/contact
81. https://mastodon.social/@testdouble
82. https://github.com/testdouble
83. https://www.linkedin.com/company/testdouble
84. https://twitter.com/testdouble
85. tel:+16143494279
86. mailto:hello@testdouble.com
87. file://testdouble.com/privacy-policy
88. file://testdouble.com/