Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amy certainly has a bit of hustle to her, but it should't be an imposing amount of it. She'd tell you that she doesn't even work 40 hours a week, partly out of lack of desire to and partly for medical reasons. I'm amazed by the "work equals money ergo lots of money equals lots of work" mental script. Do I have any credibility on this topic? I've said this for six years: you can make substantial amounts of money on pr…
Your last two sentences got interesting. Amy may be a great programmer with a great product, but her income was predicated from writing copy and marketing for that product (and I further note that some people, like the Rich Dad guy, skip the product stuff and just write copy to sell fluff). Maybe I could make a product like freckle, but as you famously constantly argue, I don't make money writing software, the money…
vs
"Amy may be a great programmer with a great skillet, but her income was predicated on creating a resume, going to a job interview, getting hired, and actually showing up at the office and doing the work her employer desired"
What's the difference here? The first paragraph is some kind of evidence of moral inadequacy, but the second, totally fine, normal, laudable?
Add "had a fantastic GitHub profile and contributed to OSS" and… don't these two sound exactly alike?