If you are doing something entirely for your benefit, that's fine. But people generally want someone to see the things they make, even if those things are not intended to be a billion-dollar startup.

The paradoxical thing about this typical simplistic Western-society benefit maximization framework is if you actually think about it in principle, to maximize benefits, you are usually better off minimizing doing the real work altogether (almost to a halt), and singularly focus on the selling whatever shit you get your hands on and focus on coordination and leveraging other people's work to capture the value, which empirically works, but is somehow crass to rewrite the article and just say so. You certainly won't hit HN first page that way.

> I indeed believe the best work is done when you are not constantly looking over your shoulder thinking about how to sell.

I, too, believe this. But let's look at what Hamming counts as "selling", as quoted in the sidebar to the article:

> You have to learn to write clearly and well so that people will read it, you must learn to give reasonably formal talks, and you also must learn to give informal talks.

"Selling", to Hamming, includes being able to tell people about what you are making. Not necessarily "pay me $999/month for my SAS I created in a weekend", but even "here is how to understand my mathematical proof". It counts everything needed to communicate to others. That can be communicate why a thing you made is worth paying for, certainly. But it also includes knowing how to get your painting framed properly, so it is in a context for people to enjoy your art.

I would get far more enjoyment out of almost anything I make if someone else also enjoyed it, rather than my creation being hidden in my apartment. And so it is useful to me to publicize it, to put it into the world for people to see, to even just be able to explain what it is. It is not all about the almighty dollar.

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."

Conversely, your most marvellous work probably becomes marvellous round about the point it moves from the realm of being perfect inside your own head to actually helping someone else. Whether that happens by means of a full-throttle sales approach and a patent so you can extract every last dollar out of it or is gifted to a world not yet fully ready to appreciate it, it's a lot more marvellous if you've put the effort into sharing it, even if that bit sounds like work.