I think its characteristic of people to devalue a different expert's contribution to a project. I am definitely typecast "nerd" and take on projects that have a

I think its characteristic of people to devalue a different expert's contribution to a project. I am definitely typecast "nerd" and take on projects that have a huge weight on my shoulders. I look at what encompasses a successful project and consider the construction/design the most important part while degrading the marketing aspect of things and feel that this is a dangerous outlook to maintain. The author writes the article saying that any idea or project is worthless without a strong foundation of workers to erect it from the ground up. As "hackers" most of us look at the problem and say that we could build it ourselves and other work is less crucial. What I want to do is stretch the analogy further and say that hackers can build a wonderful monument but if we're short sighted enough to build it on a deserted island its equally useless. Projects take more than the simple questions of what and how and require strong answers to when, where and why to be successful. What I'm really saying is we lift ourselves up above others unnecessarily sometimes. The work of a person pitching ideas or marketing the product can be just as critical to the success as is the construction of the product. When evaluating ideas for their potential don't focus entirely on how its built without considering everything else, its easy to do that as hackers when you over-value your contribution to the entire life-cycle.