It seems to me that Peter describes a lot of mistakes and then proposes mostly some new ones. After the initial dust settles, what we want is a valuable, defen

It seems to me that Peter describes a lot of mistakes and then proposes mostly some new ones. After the initial dust settles, what we want is a valuable, defensible, first good or a much better, must have and not just nice to have solution to a problem where such a solution can be the crucial, nearly sufficient means of a valuable new company. Okay, now for the lesson: However we come up with such a solution, we have to evaluate it. Well, we can look around just a little and see that some parts of our society are very good at technical evaluations of such solutions. With everything else being assumed, a successful technical evaluation is supposed to be able to remove about all doubt about the business success. E.g., the ideal solution would be a one pill, safe, effective, cheap cure for any cancer. Big company? Sure. Done. And we should expect such solutions in other areas. In particular, we are able to plan, propose, and have evaluated just on paper solutions for major problems. Examples: Hoover Dam. The new World Trade Center. The Erie Canal. Powered, controlled flight as the Wright brothers were on the way to Kitty Hawk. The SR-71. GPS. Many more. Evaluated just on paper, and then executed as planned. Sand Hill Road needs to be able to do much the same, and that is much of what Peter is missing. Instead of such solid history of project evaluation, Peter goes off on various emotional reactions to various irrational flights of triviality in various headlines, etc. Peter, friendly advice: Learn how to evaluate research results and their applications to valuable, practical projects. E.g., borrow from evaluations of GPS, the SR-71, Hoover Dam, etc.