You are not reading and are just angry for no good reason.
And what you are saying is total nonsense.
For the venture capital asset class, average returns over the past 10 years have been poor, including on Sand Hill Road. For the returns, there are many good sources; one of these I mentioned here is an old post of Mark Suster.
Some of Suster's data shows that in the last ten years roughly half of venture partners are no longer.
Common statements are that limited partners are disappointed in the returns and that many are stopping investing in venture funds.
A few venture funds have done well and have been able to raise funds recently. The total number of venture funds able to raise a round easily now may be under 20.
For information technology venture returns, "sucks" is a fully appropriate word. But if you are a venture partner, then you and your LPs know these facts of life very well already. Also there is enough data so that most entrepreneurs know the truth, also.
The DoD evidence is rock solid and right on target: If you suppress your anger and actually read and pay attention, as I have now explained in this thread in overwhelming clarity at the level of about the fourth grade over and over and over, my point is that the DoD shows that research can yield powerful solutions to practical problems. Apparently this very simple, rock solid, overwhelmingly well supported point is just too difficult for you to understand.
To hell with this HN user ID. Mods: Vote it down to zero. Your site and your mod work SUCK. To hell with you. Use your HELL BAN tricks, etc.
Your down voting mods are chicken sh!ts who won't engage in rational discussion but just sit back, silently, and attack carefully written, helpful posts with down voting. HN is arrogant and just SUCKS.
For starters, as an asset class, sand hill returns are probably as high as it gets so "sucks" is definitely the wrong description.
The DoD comparisons are just weird.