Furthermore, consider the difference in building a startup and building a typical brick and mortar business. Think of how simple the thought was to create a social network where users choose friends to create a distinct social circle. Or Drew Houston allegedly conceiving of Dropbox by repeatedly forgetting his USB drive in college. Very many SV startups build themselves off of some eureka moment that, being based on the internet, requires minimal investment, effort, connections, and reputation to establish early stage. Then, as long as it is a good idea, investment and employees flood in. Compare this to the enormous barriers of entry extant in a traditional brick and mortar with the bank loans and industry connections and disparate business resources, and combined with a barely-out-of-college aged potential CEO with or without good ideas. You get two entirely different standards of discrimination. It almost seems sometimes like SV considers bad ideas as a normal state of affairs, as a "learning experience" to future brilliance. Fail to succeed? Most successful startup founders hit it right on their debut--- why? Because they have a mentality of, "Should I do this?", and not merely, "Can I do this?".
I'm not saying low barriers to entry are necessarily a bad thing. It just seems like either there are one, a lot of fools with grand visions or two, ulterior-minded entrepreneurs looking to pad their resume or impress their friends with some social networking rip-off that only cost them $10k to build. Bustling, metropolitan environments often offer that billion dollar jackpot or Hollywood walk of fame, but require in turn a more demanding degree of discrimination to tell that shiny metal from mere fool's gold.