I&#x27;m familiar with what an NTS argument entails and I continue to disagree.<p>I think the author&#x27;s point could be restated as, &quot;if you&#x27;re going to say that what happened at Theranos discredits Silicon Valley, then let&#x27;s define what we mean by &#x27;Silicon Valley&#x27;&quot;.<p>Specifically, the author is pointing out that &quot;Silicon Valley&quot;, when used colloquially, might mean &quot;Silicon Valley venture capital firms with a track record&quot; or it might mean &quot;any qualified investor calling themselves an &#x27;angel&#x27; or a &#x27;VC&#x27; who buys private company stock&quot;. The difference between the former and the latter is not purely rhetorical, as in the definition of the NTS fallacy; it is, as I mentioned in my previous comment, measurable and falsifiable. And the author is basically saying that people in the former group should not be stigmatized by the failings of certain people in the latter group.