This article is uninformed nonsense, as per usual on this topic. When the 10x study was published, it referred to tested, quality code (and assembly code, at that). Reminds me of another article from a while back where a 0x engineer who spent his time on other maintenance, code reviews, and testing without logging his work one sprint made similar complaints about wanting productivity, as if the rest of his team thought freeing up their time to develop their task was reducing their velocity somehow. At best this type of glorified blogspam is clickbait, and at worst it suggests a strange desire to disregard hypercompetence instead of trying to learn from and emulate it.

And besides, if it genuinely (again, clickbait) takes you 100x longer to code something with tests as it does your colleague without them, there might be something deeper going on there. It could be worth trying to learn from them anyway, even if their code has a few bugs you would've caught.