I don't understand the need for bench entrepreneurs to ridicule start ups from the side lines. All this effort to point fingers and make fun of start ups which are actually trying to build businesses might be better spent actually trying to build your own business.
All the posts about Qwiki and others recently (Facebook, Zynga, Groupon) all calling for the downfall of all these start ups really make me question the value of this community at times - and it's not like these posts have 10-12 points either, they have some of the highest point totals of any articles on HN.
I'm an active entrepreneur and I completely agree with the author of the post. While the economics of the last bubble are drastically different than what's going on now, seeing this kind of exuberance for a company that has a flashy but poorly thought through idea reminds me of 1999.
There is constructive criticism, and then there is a blog post listing a bunch of reasons why this particular individual doesn't think this company should be given any money to give their idea a shot.
Constructive criticism is great, it's just there has been a notable lack of worthwhile criticism lately. In my opinion of course - but honestly, did you read the linked article? Does it contain any valuable insights into Qwiki? Yet it has over 100 points - this is the start up 'criticism' echo chamber at work.
And there are other forms of criticism that are still valid and useful. Not all criticism needs to be reassuring and/or useful to the subject of the criticism. It can be quite valuable to others to point out how and why something just isn't very good or when something unreasonable is being done - like throwing millions of dollars at something that isn't very good.
Now, what exactly is the value of complaining about an "echo chamber" or saying that people would be better off just shrugging, going back to work, and hoping they're lucky enough to get $8 million showered on them regardless of merit?