> I think you're going down a slippery slope... > let's look at what Hamming counts as "selling" Ironically, above is a textbook example of "slippery slope"; r

> I think you're going down a slippery slope... > let's look at what Hamming counts as "selling" Ironically, above is a textbook example of "slippery slope"; redefining selling to include any communication about the work. (Besides, the context Hamming seems to be targeting is academic/semi-academic formal research, which is different from purely artistic/solo efforts; it's another form of business with a somewhat different currency). One might enjoy multiplayer games more than single-player; is that "selling" too? Look, I am not arguing at all with the statement that if "impact on the world" in the external sense is your North Star, you have to "sell" in the broad sense of the word. I also am not arguing that there is pleasure in that act for some people (I, too, in fact enjoy it, sometimes more than the contribution, but that's just me). In fact, I stretch the argument even further that capturing value of the work is more in the sales aspect of it than the "real" contribution, as you can empirically see in the world. What I vehemently disagree with is the default and universal framing, that everyone's goal is, or ought to be, external projection of the work--and that otherwise the work is "valueless". I also disagree with the universal perception that all people would equally gain more satisfaction by the "impact" than the inherent pleasure associated with the work. Without that mindset, extremely long term investments and contributions will never be made. Okay, maybe you'll redefine "selling" to explaining your vision to people living 500 years from now, but I don't. And I doubt that is the intent of the article. I read it as much more pedestrian: "if you want to get promoted, gotta sell your work to your bosses."