[todayiamme]

How can you make such an assumption with so little data? It might be that you've met people from this fund and you know something I don't, but until then your statement sounds a wee bit unqualified. It's hard to swallow that given they have invested in,

> SpaceX ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTFlFFrfEB0&feature=youtu... )

> Halcyon Molecular ( http://www.genomeweb.com/sequencing/halcyon-molecular-develo... )

> Palantir

> Pathway Genomics ( http://www.crunchbase.com/company/pathway-genomics )

> Gene Security Network ( http://www.crunchbase.com/company/gene-security-network )

> CDD ( http://www.crunchbase.com/company/collaborative-drug-discove... )

> ImmunePath ( www.immunepath.com/ )

> RoboTex ( http://www.robotex.us/ )

> SmartDrive ( http://www.crunchbase.com/company/smartdrive-systems )

> Navia ( http://www.crunchbase.com/company/navia-systems )

That doesn't sound like a social-mobile-local marketing companies portfolio to me, and yes I've seen their investments in companies such as Yammer, RapLeaf, but clearly they aren't their entire portfolio and they have taken a series of really impressive long term bets.

[dstein]

It's merely my cynical conclusion that this VC fund is mouthing a lot of hogwash. Two-thirds of the companies they have funded are exactly the kinds of companies that this manifesto says are the problem. Their essay really doesn't really say what their goals are other than to invest in entrepreneurs "tackling challenging problems" which is what every single VC in Silicon Valleys says, yet all of them are still chasing the next social-mobile-local marketing company.

The entire essay is bullshit.

[todayiamme]

Maybe they just need to balance out their portfolio for short term as well as long term returns? And perhaps they feel that these bubbly companies are the best way to do so?

For some reason this just feels like the fundamental error of attribution to me. Yes, I accept that I might be wrong, but it still does. http://www.paulgraham.com/randomness.html