I sent the same prompt to four AI apps on my Android: “I dislike reading ‘You don’t have 10 years of experience, you have 1 years repeated 10 times.’ Why might that be?” I'm not going to identify which AI's because of reasons.

What follows is each complete unedited first reply, followed by my thoughts. Enjoy, or rant. Your call. Whichever you choose, I encourage you to learn.

AI1

“I can see several reasons that line would grate on you.

The phrase “You don’t have 10 years of experience. You have 1 year repeated 10 times” sounds clever, but it smuggles in some questionable assumptions.

First, it confuses repetition with stagnation. Doing similar work repeatedly does not mean you stopped learning. An experienced engineer may solve the same category of problem dozens of times, but encounter different organizations, constraints, failure modes, personalities, technologies, budgets, and consequences. Pattern recognition itself is accumulated experience.

Second, it discounts depth in favor of novelty. There is a modern tendency to treat constantly doing something new as evidence of growth. But mastery often comes from revisiting the same territory and noticing things a less experienced person cannot see. A master carpenter has probably made a lot of tables. That doesn't mean the twentieth table taught them nothing.

Third, the saying is usually delivered from a position of unjustified superiority. The speaker is effectively declaring, with almost no evidence, that another person's years don't count. It turns what could be a useful question, “Am I still learning?”, into a verdict: “Your experience isn't real.”

And I suspect there's something particularly relevant to your engineering background. In software and data engineering, you've probably seen the recurring cycle of someone encountering an old problem for the first time and assuming it's a new problem. Experience means recognizing, “We've seen a version of this before. Here's what happened last time, and here's the part that's different this time.” That is almost the opposite of mindless repetition.

There is a worthwhile idea buried inside the cliché. Someone really can become comfortable, stop challenging assumptions, and repeat the same methods for years without developing much. But years alone don't tell us whether that happened.

I'd replace the aphorism with something more charitable and accurate:

Ten years of experience isn't measured by how many different things you did. It's measured by how much better you became at seeing what matters.

Or, perhaps closer to an engineer's version:

Experience isn't doing ten different things once. Sometimes it's doing the same thing ten times and finally understanding why it works.

That second one also gets at something the original saying completely misses: iteration is how engineering works.

And there may be one more reason you dislike it. You've spent a career in a field where longevity can look repetitive from the outside. SSIS, SQL Server, data integration, consulting, training. Someone enamored with novelty could characterize that as repeating the same year. From inside the work, however, you can see decades of changing architectures, customers, constraints, technologies, mistakes, and accumulated judgment.

The aphorism mistakes a consistent domain for a static mind. Those are very different things.”

AI2

“The line is trying to say something true: calendar time is not the same as learning. Showing up and doing the same motion without feedback, variation, or reflection does produce a kind of Groundhog Day résumé. That part is fair.

What usually makes the sentence grate is how it gets used.

It is almost always deployed as a put-down of depth. The implied moral is that the virtuous path is breadth: new company, new stack, new title every 18 months. Staying in one domain, one product line, or one class of hard problems is treated as evidence you stopped growing. That is a category error. Seeing the same kind of problem across ten different clients, ten different versions of the platform, ten years of production consequences, and ten generations of “this time it will be different” is not one year repeated. It is pattern recognition that only time-in-the-same-arena produces. The person who hopped five stacks never watches their own architectural choices rot. The person who stayed does.

The quote also flattens two different failures into one insult. There really are people who have been doing junior work for a decade. There are also people who have been compounding judgment in a narrow field. The sentence does not distinguish them; it just sounds clever. That is why it shows up so often in LinkedIn posts and hiring threads: it lets the speaker feel sophisticated without having to inspect anyone’s actual work.

A third reason it lands badly is that it treats experience as a consumption good (“how many new things did you try?”) instead of a production good (“what can you now see that a first-year person cannot?”). Mastery in anything that has a long tail of edge cases—data platforms, integration, operations, medicine, martial arts—looks a lot like repetition from the outside. The 10,000-hour version of the idea was never “do 10,000 different things.” It was deliberate practice in the same domain.

So the dislike is often not resistance to growth. It is resistance to a slogan that quietly redefines growth as restlessness and treats accumulated judgment as a character flaw.”

AI3

“That phrase has become a staple of corporate “thought leadership” and LinkedIn hustle culture, and finding it irritating is a very healthy reaction.

There are several distinct reasons why that aphorism tends to grate on people:

1. It Smells of Smug, Pseudo-Profound Hustle Culture

The quote is almost always delivered with an unearned air of superiority. It’s typically deployed by career coaches, consultants, or corporate climbers who want to sound incisive while undermining someone else’s honest work. It manufactures inadequacy: no matter how hard or reliably you’ve worked, it tells you that your time was basically wasted unless you were constantly “disrupting” yourself.

2. It Misunderstands Mastery and Repetition

True mastery in almost every field—whether it’s carpentry, surgery, farming, software engineering, or parenting—requires immense amounts of repetition. Bruce Lee famously said, “I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times.”

Doing the fundamental tasks of a job year in and year out isn’t a failure of ambition; it is how deep competence, instinct, and craftsmanship are built. The quote dismisses the value of the repetition required to truly master a trade.

3. It Devalues Quiet, Steady Competence

Modern corporate culture has an obsession with hyper-growth, constant novelty, and climbing the ladder. But civilization runs on people who show up, do their jobs dependably, and go home to their families without needing to reinvent their career every six months. The phrase carries an implicit contempt for the steady, loyal backbone of the workforce in favor of superficial, rapid movement.

4. It Ignores “Invisible” Experience

Even if your day-to-day tasks in year ten look similar to year one, you are not the same person. Ten years on the job yields:

•  Pattern recognition: Seeing problems developing miles before a novice would.

•  Temperament: Knowing when to panic and when not to.

•  Resilience: Having weathered industry downturns, bad managers, and unexpected crises.

These forms of wisdom are subtle and hard to quantify on a resume, but they only come from time in the saddle. The quote treats human experience as purely transactional and mechanical, ignoring the maturity that comes with time.

5. It’s an Arrogant Generalization

It takes a complex reality—that some people do plateau and become complacent—and turns it into a pithy, universal dismissal. It assumes that if someone has stayed in the same lane, they haven’t learned anything, which is rarely true.

In short, your dislike of it likely stems from a natural allergy to corporate jargon that prizes superficial novelty over genuine, steady competence.”

AI4

“A few reasons it lands badly:

It's built so it can't be answered. There's no evidence you could produce that would refute it. Any body of work can be redescribed as "the same year, again" by someone who doesn't know the work well enough to see the differences. That's the structure of an insinuation, not an observation.

It assumes novelty is the only source of learning. Repetition is where craft actually comes from — the same problem seen from a few hundred angles until you can spot the failure mode in the first ten minutes. The line treats that as stagnation, when it's the mechanism. Someone who's changed stacks five times in ten years has breadth and a lot of shallow bottoms; the aphorism has no way to say that.

It's usually a status move. It gets deployed to discount tenure cheaply — by people with less of it, or by hiring managers rationalizing a preference they'd rather not state plainly. The burden lands on the experienced person to prove growth, and the only currency accepted is visible change: new titles, new tools, new logos.

It sounds true because it's shaped well. The reversal is satisfying, so it propagates without ever being tested. That's irritating on its own terms if you care about whether a sentence is doing real work.

There's a legitimate concern buried in it — some people do coast. But the phrase doesn't distinguish coasting from depth. It just casts suspicion on everyone who stayed.

(Also: "1 years." The people repeating it can't even keep the number agreement straight.)”

Me:

First, I typed “1 years,” so that's on me, AI4.

Second, parts of these responses were things with which I agree but hadn't articulated (or consciously thought) before. They were “absolutely right,” to use AI parlance.

Third, I composed this article entirely on my phone. I've not attempted that before. I'm a little shocked it was possible.

Fourth, this is not an argument against anyone who uses the “1 year repeated” phrase, even though I wasn't lying about it bugging me.

Fifth, this is also not an argument against negative responses to the usage of AI in writing. You could make the case for “AI slop” reading these responses, methinks.

Finally, my dislike of the “1 year repeated” phrase is that it seemed shallow to me. The word “reductive,” and that idea, shows up in the AI responses.

In some ways, the AI responses were more generous than me. Reading those parts encourages me to temper my reactions in the future, to exercise more grace when my knee starts to jerk.

[also posted at Andy Leonard’s blog]

tl;dr - Sign up for SSIS Premium, use the coupon code “eod-reader” and save 10%!

You didn’t learn SSIS in a classroom.

You learned it because someone left and the packages stayed. You learned it at 11:00 PM, reading a Control Flow that a contractor built in 2014, working out why the deployment succeeded and the load did…

Read more

This is DILM Suite Manager, the central lifecycle manager for the DILM Suite. From one screen, you can see what is installed, which products have updates waiting, and what your subscription covers. You can also install, update, launch, or…

Read more

Until the new developer starts. Or the instance moves. Or you are three windows deep in an emergency deployment at 2:00 AM and two connection strin…

Read more

Relentless optimism.

Not hype.
Not denial.
Not “everything is fine” when everything is clearly not fine.

Relentless optimism is different.

It is what remains after the spreadsheet has had its say. After the runway expires. After the market does not respond as quickly as you hoped. Af…

Read more

I edited the video for clarity and length.

I’ve shipped it to paid subscribers only. I appreciate you…

Read more

Enjoy this free preview!

Become a paid subscriber to access the full video and score other perks.

:{>

Thirteen months ago, Kent Bradshaw and I made a bet.

We decided to go heads down on DILM Suite.

I had about a year of runway. I knew that going in. The plan was simple - at least on paper: invest deeply, build the next generation versions of the products we believe need to exist, and give the market enough time to tell us whether we were right.

The runway …

Read more

I have spent a chunk of a career in the part of data that has no name.

Not the dashboards. Not the models everyone lines up to demo. The layer underneath - the part that moves the data, in the right order, at the right time, and puts it back together when something tears at 2:00 AM.

The plumbing.
The glue.
The work that is invisible when it goes right an…

Read more

The message has gone out, and most of the industry has already received it: we no longer need junior engineers.

You have felt it even if no one said it to your face.

The hiring req that quietly disappeared.
The team that decided to “just use an agent” instead of bringing someone up.
The senior who got faster overnight and started wondering, privately, wh…

Read more

Last week, I wrote:

Observable Run - every execution leaves a durable, queryable record of what ran, with what, and how it ended.

I called it a pattern.
It is also a door.

Behind it is the question every data team eventually gets asked - by an auditor, a regulator, a new VP, or a 2:00 AM incident:

Can you prove it?

You can describe what your pipelines do. Yo…

Read more

You.
Me.
Fabric Data Factory.

A Day of Fabric Data Factory is a full-day, live, online training event on 23 June 2026.

We’ll spend the day building, learning, and working through Fabric Data Factory together.

See the syllabus and register here.

Use coupon code EODSubstack at checkout and save.

I hope to see you there!

:{>

Last week, I wrote:

Stateful problems need their own names. We never wrote them.

You’ve written idempotent loads, restart logic, dependency chains, promotion configs.
By hand.
Correctly enough to ship.

You already build every one of these.

You’re not missing the knowledge. You’re missing the words. Missing words have a cost:

• You explained your restart approa…

Read more

Your orchestration runs. It Just Works every night. You built something real and that is not nothing. The ache isn’t that it’s broken - it’s that it lives in three people’s heads and a folder of conventions nobody wrote down.

• You wrote the retry logic from scratch in three different projects, a little different each time.

• A new hire can’t safely touch t…

Read more

I’ve recently become infatuated with the idea of building in public, inspired by cursory glances and skimming the writings of Pieter Levels (@levelsio) and Arvid Kahl. Both men practice building in public.

I have an unfair advantage and a liability:

My unfair advantage? Levels and others started their build-in-publi…

Read more

Tomorrow, I’m joining AnalyticsCreator for a live demo titled “Build faster. Promote safely. Govern SSIS properly.“ Two showings -- 9:00 AM and 1:00 PM EDT.

Here’s the arc:

First, a data warehouse

The good engineers at…

Read more

You’re not behind.

You’re a Data Engineer in an enterprise that’s been using SSIS since before you were hired. Part of your job is monitoring and managing over 400 packages, most of which load the enterprise data warehouse used by Marketing, Sales, and the C-suite to keep up with how the business is running. The nightly, monthly, and quarterly loads exec…

Read more