> That's after the worst performers have been let go

Better to look at the situation including such bad performers...

It's often difficult for 3x programmers to make it at first because the 1x programmers will often gang up on the 3x programmer to protect their own jobs, although the behavior is often unspoken about between them. Many places will thus hire 3x programmers in bulk as a separate team, but many -0.5x programmers will slip in as well. A group of such 3x programmers will often put one of their own number to watch over, say, four of the -0.5x programmers, who will thus appear to be a 1x programmer, 3 + (4 * -0.5) == 1. 10x programmers can be groomed from a 3x programmer over time, but it's difficult for a business to pull off because the other 3x programmers will gang up on them, similarly fearful for their own jobs. And only big Silicon Valley names can hire 10x programmers in bulk.

Nobody denied it. Laurent went looking for evidence (to reinforce it, as a matter of fact) and found there isn't any strong evidence to back up the number 10, he found out that it's mostly a narrative that has been repeated over the decades. He reiterates that he sees a wide variety of programmer performance, and that lots of people are confusing what he's saying, that there isn't evidence, for saying that all programmers are roughly even in productivity.

How do you measure productivity on your team? How do you arrive at the factor of five?

Well the number ten has obvious origins. Thanks to evolution we have ten fingers that we like to use to count with. I don't think many people believe it's based on some rigorous data.

A lot of people comment on HN that there are no 10x engineers, which I find strange. How can you work in this industry and not be convinced of the huge gradient in productivity?

We measure productivity with #bugs, #points of features, etc. It's pretty crude, but better than lines of code. It really doesn't tell the whole story though, because most of what makes a 10x engineer is not solving problems faster, but solving the right problem in the first place.

Anecdotal, subjective reports. Real rigorous; I can see why someone should find this convincing.

You must work in a really sad place.