Being a 0.1x'er means you're taking advantage of a lack of real management, or that management cannot function properly because of upper management.
Heh, a few years back I spent like a month diagnosing a problem where the fix was two hexadecimal characters on the same line.
Some bespoke hardware was dying by kernel panic within ~30s of starting up, after a bunch of library/kernel/vendor-drivers upgrades. I don't think a month is too bad considering I had zero C/C++ experience (yes, I pointed this out to them repeatedly), each recompile/test/lab-install cycle was really long, and the problem wasn't really in the kernel at all, but actually a pre-existing collision/corruption of the memory space where the kernel was being loaded.
See also: bullshit jobs.[0]
There are lazy developers out there, but we know who they are. Most managers do, too.
The article, does make the caveat at the end, but I think the damage is done:
>> Before you start side-eyeing your coworkers, it’s worth noting that measuring productivity in software engineering is notoriously tricky. Commit counts or hours logged are often poor indicators of true impact. Some high-performing engineers—the mythical “10x engineers”—produce significant results with fewer, well-thought-out contributions.
Soon CTOs will be making performance judgements based solely on commits! Forcing. Developers. To. Commit. Every. Single. Little. Change.