The @nytimes post on @DavidSacks is a travesty. Utterly shameful journalism Anyone who is qualified to be AI and crypto czar - both of which are rapidly iterating new technologies - by definition *must be invested in many companies in these sectors* so that they can learn from practitioners across industry and…. You know, be qualified for the job You can’t fulfill this role as an academic. Academics haven’t done things in the real world. You need to be in the trenches, take risk, be wrong sometimes, be right sometimes, and update your priors You can’t fulfill this role as an operator from one company. That is too narrowly biased The *only* acceptable archetype for this role is someone who looks like David. But the journalists here never try to understand reality. Instead they just write hit pieces Truly shameful behavior. The entire premise of their argument is flawed from inception. They never once presented a plausible framing that could perhaps try to explain why David is the best man for this job This piece is a textbook hit job. 0 effort at trying to understand the truth.