The article is primarily about WeWork and the VCs that invested in it. I don't get why so many comments in this thread are about the Murdoch/Theranos stuff whic

The article is primarily about WeWork and the VCs that invested in it. I don't get why so many comments in this thread are about the Murdoch/Theranos stuff which hardly features. WeWork had "real" VC backing and 95% of the text is the story of WeWork. If anything the weak point of the article is it perhaps focuses on WeWork too much and generalises from that to the whole VC industry, which may or may not be valid, I don't know. But judging by the conspicuous lack of discussion of the meat of the essay visible in this HN thread, I'm guessing either most people didn't read the article or there is enough truth to it that arguing minor semantic points is the best we can do.