<i>I will readily take a business-minded, action-oriented cofounder who gets shit done. I have absolutely no interest in a hustler.</i><p>In my mind, that is the absolute definition of a hustler, someone who will get shit done. Predicating that hustlers are sleazy, or have questionable ethics, or don't value technical skill sets is the same as assuming that "hackers" are people who break into computers.<p>Sure there are probably a lot of sleazy "hustlers", just as their are malicious "hackers", but in my mind the definition of a hustler is someone who comes at the same problem as a good hacker would - with the same tenacity and willingness to try new things and the inability to quit in solving a problem.<p>In which case I absolutely want a hustler on my team, just not a shitty one.<p><i>Admittedly, I've done Micah some disservice by referencing his article. The Hustlers he describes aren't the sleezeballs I keep encountering, but unfortunately they share the same space and a more literal interpretation of the term includes them.</i><p>So it sounds like the summary is that good hustlers are hard to come by, just as good hackers are, not that they aren't good to have. The title seems to suggest otherwise.