Even assuming that maybe the average developer could come to learn how to solve the problem you can easily see the gap between taking months to learn how to solve a problem versus already knowing how to solve it on short notice being over 10x.
Large productivity differences are mostly a function of differences in capability than differences of speed in solving rote problems easily within their capabilitys.
> Have you literally never run into a problem that the average developer can not solve, but a expert can solve?
> Even assuming that maybe the average developer could come to learn ... already knowing how to solve it on short notice being over 10x.
Clearly I understand the gap, I explicitly mentioned it. I mentioned a month's work is quite valuable. I'm not the one diminishing that value, you are.
I can totally buy instances of 10x improvement, but that's not what we're talking about and not how anyone is using the term. Everyone is talking about sustained output. No one gives a shit if you're 100x for five minutes but 0.5x the rest of the time.
Your critique isn't wrong, per say, but it is a non sequitur to the conversation.
I doubt even a staff level engineer is even a 10x above the junior. Will the staff level engineer write better code and faster? Hell yeah they will! But will it take a junior 10 years to write the same software a staff level does in a year? Maybe. But if it does I'm not convinced they're even trying, so not a fair comparison. 10 years is a lot of time. A lot of time to learn, refactor, or even build the damn thing from scratch a few dozen times.
Seriously, 10x improvements are actually wild.
But why dismiss a 10% gain as if it's nothing? Why is the smaller number bad?
Is the need for the number to go up so strong that we don't care how divorced from reality it is?