[oneeyedpigeon]

I think we're agreeing on the aim—good results—but disagreeing on what those results consist of. If I'm acting as a 'company', one that wants a beneficial relationship with a productive programmer for the long-term, I would rather have [ program that works 90%, programmer who is 10% better at their job having written it ] as my outputs than a perfect program and a less-good programmer.

[jaggederest]

I take epistemological issue with that, basically, because I don't know how you measure those things. I believe fundamentally that the only way to measure things like that is to look at the outputs, and whether it's the system improving or the person operating that system improving I can't tell.

What is the difference between a "less good programmer" and a "more good programmer" if you can't tell via their work output? Are we doing telepathy or soul gazing here? If they produce good work they could be a team of raccoons in a trench coat as far as I'm aware, unless they start stealing snacks from the corner store.