And that so many people who are purportedly expert at evaluating technology got collectively duped/brainwashed into believing a whole bunch of fluff based on no more than a TED talk-level technology pitch.
I am frequently amazed at how willing VCs tend to be to provide money while at the same time being unwilling to express skepticism, even to themselves, about the claims of some of the companies they fund.
Some time ago, after a particular VC firm had dumped $40m into a "security" (for which read "snake-oil") company, the company suits happened to make a closed-door presentation which, unknown to them, a handful of people with practical security expertise had been invited to attend. A VC representative was also in attendance, although he did not speak. When we recommended, after the talk, that the listeners have nothing further to do with the company product, the VC representative sought one of us out (it happened to be me) and the end result was that I spent a day at the company facility, towards the end of which I had a short meeting with the VC representative and explained at an intelligent layman's level why the product could never work. The money pipe closed that day. But I remain puzzled as to how $40m could have been dumped into a scheme that was so obviously flawed.