I may have missed this part in the article, but the &quot;0.1x&quot; moniker, as a reaction to the &quot;10x&quot; label... seems to miss the point.<p>The &quot;10x&quot; type folks I know are &quot;10 times as productive&quot; as others <i>precisely</i> because they know how to deal with some of those issues in the 0.1x list - push off new features, reduce amount of new tech introduced, drop old features, etc.<p>Knowing how to focus on the things that provide the <i>most</i> value in the <i>least</i> effort - but still move the project forward - that&#x27;s where my understanding of the 10x label always was based.  Maybe I&#x27;d had it wrong and people were always focused on &quot;lines of code&quot;?<p>Or maybe this was the point the OP was making anyway, but it went over my head.  I know only a handful of places that have ever really looked at pure &quot;output&quot; (of code, for example) as the primary productivity measure.