Doesn’t work that way from what I’ve seen. People are comfortable enough to technically discuss things with people at other home levels but not actually practice more than 2 levels away. Small differences overwhelm conceptual similarities. Skill decays to dangerously amateurish.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @johanatan
I think you’re vastly overestimating the number and or capabilities of these supposed “true masters”. If anything I think I know far more of them than usual, which throws the average/median engineer’s limited range into sharp relief.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @vgr @johanatan
And it’s not what I’ve “heard”. It’s what I’ve seen close-up or directly participated in across a variety of gigs.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @johanatan
There’s too much to do for the bandwidth of the top talent. This has been true since at least the 80s. Most tech that has succeeded at scale has done so by figuring out how to leverage what *average* talent can do.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @johanatan
Coming from a country which pretty much invented the game of throwing large numbers of decidedly average people at programming, I’m much more sympathetic to, and optimistic about, the results. It’s not a filter. It’s a risk-managed allocation decision.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
It’s actually okay for a random low-importance enterprise software thing to be janky and unstable. It doesn’t have to be as solid as nuclear reactor code. I’m apathetic about “what humanity needs” type thinking. Let the marketplace of a zillion janky github repos decide that.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.