This VC-funded light-tech bubble is a gigantic bike shed. The problem is that a VC who "sees things in people" (usually, only young white male people from Stan

This VC-funded light-tech bubble is a gigantic bike shed. The problem is that a VC who "sees things in people" (usually, only young white male people from Stanford) can't evaluate them for the skill and expertise to build a new dialysis machine, anti-lock brake system, or graphics card. It's actually hard, from an armchair perspective, to know what should and should not be built unless one is in those "unsexy" industries, much less evaluate people for the competence to execute, when you don't know that stuff yourself. On the other hand, for trivialities, the "we invest in people, not businesses" morons can get to believe that they have all the relevant information. (I doubt their judgment of character is nearly as good as they think it is, but that's another discussion.) Additionally, the hottest VCs are the ones who can garner the highest social in-degree, and that means they have to be in the light-tech space where they could conceivably fund anyone (even an idiot). Most people are ignoring the rest of technology and focusing on the low-grade light tech (where the age discrimination is worst) that is closer to marketing than engineering. See, if you ask a hundred people whether self-driving cars are technically feasible now (much less, what algorithms one would use to train them) 99 will say they have no idea. On the other hand, every idiot in the Valley has a strong opinion of whether Twitter, Tumblr, Uber, et al deserve to get another round of funding, an acquisition or IPO, etc. You get the age discrimination in the bike-shed world, which isn't really technology if you ask me. In real technology, people know better than to turn away talent over something so trivial.