I might be a bit tired right now so I couldn't grasp what she meant. But was there ever a counter-argument in this post?<p>"I don’t know, because it’s a faulty premise. Just because an entrepreneur minimizes his or her downside, he doesn’t render his risk meaningless."<p>So she's saying that Gladwell should have said "minimized risk" instead of "[about taking risks] they do no such thing".<p>"What he never acknowledges is that most entrepreneurs fail, whether they are zany or calculating, and whether or not they are prepared for the challenges of creating a new business."<p>She doesn't acknowledge this because that wasn't the point of the article. Entrepreneurs who take less risk are generally more successful, of course many (maybe even most) fail anyway, that doesn't change the fact that you are more successful if you take less risk.<p>This article seems more like a summary and not an actual argument for why "Malcolm Gladwell Must Be Stopped" or why "He’s also a purveyor of garbage".<p>Edit: he = she