Kinda odd that the article names the Palo Alto Stock Farm as the "first tech giant" when it was Stanford's - the man, not the place - 6th industry to enter (law

Kinda odd that the article names the Palo Alto Stock Farm as the "first tech giant" when it was Stanford's - the man, not the place - 6th industry to enter (lawyer, merchant, railroads, insurance, wineries, horses). Several of those - like selling equipment to 49ers, or completing the first transcontinental railroad - would be much more closely identified with "tech" than horses. Indeed, the outsize role of horses mentioned in the article was already being cannibalized by railroads when Stanford entered the business; arguably this is him entering the wrong side of history for nostalgia's sake. The article has a very Malcolm Gladwell feel: take liberty with the facts and misrepresent what's important, so that you can write something that nobody else is focusing on, seem novel and interesting, and get lots of clicks or magazine sales.