Okay, I'll bite at this flame bait:

First, sorry to be 'sexist', but the pattern is far too strong to ignore: For some reason, maybe part of some of the old teachings and/or attitudes of the Roman Catholic church, heavily in Western culture women are supposed to want to dedicate their lives to 'saving the world'. A belief is that, if they dedicate their lives to saving the world, then the world will be obligated to save them and will. Indeed, it is common for such a woman to be 'married' more strongly to their church or saving the world than to their actual husband. That is, she is married to her husband but 'commits adultery' with her church or the whales.

Also, the women are supposed to regard money as something they are supposed not to be interested in. Indeed, a belief is that if they do have have money, then they will no longer deserve to be cared for by the world and, thus, will have a big net loss. In addition, there is a belief that any woman who does anything that results in making money is somehow doing something immoral and, thus, causing her, again, no longer deserving to be cared for by the world.

If the above points seem absurd to you, then I congratulate you on hearing these points finally now instead of later. I hate to say this, but basically on these points I'm standing on rock solid ground. Believe me, I came to understand these points only very slowly and reluctantly and at enormous cost. Let's not go into all it cost.

But, I can tell you, it's far too common for such a woman, with a loving husband, a house, three small children, busy at home, in a job, and at church, to attend a lecture on some need on the other side of the planet and, then, to give up everything to rush to the other side of the planet to address the need. One women I know even wrote a book about her effort along these lines, and I could, but won't, give you the author and title of the book.

I kid you not: A LOT of Western women are out to 'save the' world, whales, environment, polar bears, kitty cats, puppy dogs, poor people in countries X, Y, Z (mostly NOT their own countries), etc. E.g., even the movies understand as in the remark in the second 'Jurassic Park' movie: "80% women, Greenpeace".

So, she's out to save the world and is upset because SV is not.

Okay, now lets set aside her point about saving the world.

I'd make another point about 'finance': Yes, we would value a company based on 'discounted future cash flows'. But we nearly never have any way to know about cash flows very far into the future. So, net, a lot of financial evaluation is based on just the latest data, adjusted for 'variance'. Are the short term traders making a mistake? They are watching many times a second and will sell at the first evidence of a change in the status of the company and, thus, don't get caught when the price falls. If the cash flow indeed lasts, then the short term traders will again be doing the right things.

VCs and their entrepreneurs can't sell in a fraction of a second, but, still, a short term horizon for evaluation seems to be ground into pricing in finance.

So, that she is concerned about short term pricing is nearly inevitable.

Next, that there are clones for GroupOn is not an example of something silly about SV: Instead, GroupOn is quite obviously vulnerable to a different clone in each of Peoria, Paducah, and Pleasantville. Indeed, a clone in Peoria might have better connections with the businesses in Peoria and have an advantage. Net, the many clones of GroupOn are mostly due to what GroupOn is doing instead of SV.

So, why can GroupOn have such a high market capitalization? Because of the practice of pricing companies based only on very recent data.

I would have another objection about SV:

I can believe that the biomedical VCs know what they are doing. I believe that the 'problem sponsors' at NSF, NIH, DARPA, ONR, etc. know very well what they are doing. But for the information technology (IT) VCs, I ROFL and then crying. The incompetence is astounding, outrageous, off the wall, out of some Alice in Wonderland, beyond belief. Actually, YC is a grand exception: Most or all of the partners actually have some solid qualifications in IT. Otherwise, we're looking at history majors who got an MBA, worked in 'management consulting', 'development', 'marketing', analyzing stocks, and, thus, accumulated "deep domain knowledge". What a LAUGH: They don't know the first thing about IT, even the old stuff, and they have not a clue about evaluating things for the future.

What technical IT founder would want to hire one of these ignorant, arrogant blowhards? These blowhards are not qualified to do anything technical, teach a technical course in a university (or even high school), write a technical paper, review a technical paper, get a research grant, etc.

Again, at biomedical VC, NSF, NIH, DARPA, ONR, and YC, the situation is wildly different.

The non-technical situation in VC IT is so uniform that I have to look for a single cause, and my guess is that the situation is not due just to the VCs but to their LPs. It's very much as if some of the leading LPs wrote the criteria for each of seed, Series A, B, and C rounds on one side of a 3 x 5" card and insist that the VCs follow these criteria.

In particular, the criteria demand that the VCs just ignore the 'secret sauce'.

What to pay attention to?

Seed round: Look at the prototype software and estimate if many users will like it and give their 'eyeballs'.

Series A: Have the number of unique eyeballs per month at at least 100,000 and growing rapidly.

Series B: Have revenue growing rapidly.

Series C: Have earnings, and buy a chunk of the company based mostly just on the earnings and exit possibilities.

For any estimate of building a serious company, ignore that.

At an IT VC table, without YC, now tough to find an A. Viterbi or G. Moore on either side of the table.

That 3 x 5" card IT VC criteria explains the trivia she sees. On this point, I agree with her.