I think this makes sense if you consider an interview as extending a hand to a poor, down-trodden vagrant, rather than an exchange amongst equals.<p>The article might go over the top a bit with self-pity, but personally I just see it as suboptimal behaviour.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;danluu.com&#x2F;programmer-moneyball&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;danluu.com&#x2F;programmer-moneyball&#x2F;</a> - Dan Luu explains better than I can.<p>I think fundamentally the idea of paying developer X 40K and developer Y 80K (because developer Y has been twice as effective in the past) is broken, because it negates the impact of environment.<p>If you pay someone 150K GBP in London they can live next door to the office, have TaskRabbit like services perform all household tasks for them, and spend their time exercising and reading 24&#x2F;7. They will kill it.<p>Pay them 30K, and regardless of pedigree, they&#x27;re going to struggle.<p>Somewhere in there is a balance and I argue it&#x27;s far less to do with certification and more the circumstances of life which as an employer you have huge discretion to influence.<p>Basically, it&#x27;s about steelmanning. Why is someone bad? Is it that they&#x27;re inherently genetically dysfunctional? Or is it that they haven&#x27;t been coached well or have a difficult environment?<p>Given good faith, most of the developers I know have the ability to be amazing. I include myself in that (am I that good? dunno, impostor syndrome innit). But they are stifled by needless nonsense. Management, open office, low pay, commute, stress, basically. Kill the stress and you get your &#x27;10x engineer&#x27;. Keep the stress and your &#x27;10x engineer&#x27; turns into a chocolate mousse.