The article does seem to have a good description of how Silicon Valley venture capital thinks and works. Of course, again, on average the venture firms have po

The article does seem to have a good description of how Silicon Valley venture capital thinks and works. Of course, again, on average the venture firms have poor ROI: http://www.kauffman.org/newsroom/2012/07/institutional-limited-partners-must-accept-blame-for-poor-longterm-returns-from-venture-capital-says-new-kauffman-report http://www.kauffman.org/newsroom/2012/07/institutional-limit... http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2013/02/venture-capital-returns.html#disqus_thread http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2013/02/venture-capital-returns.html... Yes, apparently the Silicon Valley information technology (IT) venture firms are trying to evaluate everything that comes in the door having to do with IT. There's a problem doing this: By analogy, it's like picking dart throwers. Only a tiny fraction of the dart throwers are actually experts, and the rest are amateurs throwing wildly. But, there are so few experts and so many more amateurs that, on average, nearly all the darts in the center of the target come from lucky amateurs and not real experts. So, net, the Silicon Valley is trying to evaluate the huge fraction of amateurs that mostly need just luck. Much better would be to concentrate on the few real experts who need much less in luck. "Few"? Right, but so is the number of desired successes, and the number of real experts should be sufficient. Then, with the article, we come to a significant point: The Silicon Valley venture capital (VC) firms just do not know how to plan, do, and evaluate projects from real experts. Some people do know: The shortest description of project planning is: Step 1: Pick a good problem. Step 2: Use IT to get a good solution. So, sure, in Step 1 want to solve a suitably important problem, one where the first good or a much better solution will be a must have and not just a nice to have for enough people so that the number of people times the average earnings per person is enough to make a real unicorn. Or, in crude, simple terms, maybe want a must have solution for a big ass problem in a big ass market. Sure, the ideal situation, although likely not in IT, would be a safe, effective, inexpensive one pill taken once cure for any cancer. Such a project would just "cut right through" (borrowing from the movie Moneyball) all the nonsense about body language, vision to change the world, how to manage 100, 1000, 10,000 people, hard scrabble backgrounds, tone of voice, assertive manner, clothes selections, etc. And, sure, in Step 2 want to use IT to get the "first good or much better solution", defensible, with barriers to entry, etc. So, from the article, apparently Silicon Valley VCs don't know how to evaluate projects that follow the two steps above. Does anyone know how to do such evaluations? Sure: For Step 1, that the problem being solved is suitably important should, like the example of the cancer pill, be obvious. Right, here get to rule out considering projects such as Fab, PopSugar, Zulily, SnapChat, AirBnb. So, what's left is Step 2, and evaluating that is mostly just technical. While apparently Silicon Valley is next to hopeless at evaluating new, powerful technology, our better research universities, NSF, NIH, DARPA, etc. are quite good, thank you. So, an example of a project with really good technology? Sure: http://iliketowastemytime.com/sites/default/files/sr71_blackbird_leaking_fuel_cell19.jpg http://iliketowastemytime.com/sites/default/files/sr71_black... Sorry, Marc: On my BoD I want -- it's crucial and I insist -- people who can understand my business, including the crucial core, unique IT, and for that, Marc, I want to know what you did in your STEM field Ph.D. program and have done in research since. E.g., I want people like the dissertation advisors in STEM fields in top research universities and problem sponsors at NSF, NIH, DARPA. How many Silicon Valley VCs do you know who qualify? I want people like those who looked at Kelly Johnson's engineering drawings and approved the SR-71; Marc, their batting average is much better than yours or nearly any VC (Chris Sacca may be on the way to being the only exception), and they fund just off pieces of paper. Marc, from the article your evaluations look like you would have asked Kelly Johnson if his SR-71 could also fly to Mars and refuse to fund him unless he enthusiastically said "Mars? Yes, and to infinity and beyond!" or some such nonsense. Look, Marc, it was Mach 3+, 80,000+ feet, 2000+ miles without refueling, never shot down -- as needed, as planned, as accomplished. Marc, in simple terms, in IT, you just do not know very well what you are doing; on my BoD, can't use you; your wildly irrational flights of nonsense could sink my company.