Yep, there goes his chance of raising any more money for foreseeable future.

This.

I'm wondering how this warranted a writeup like this. Someone starts a few ventures, a few people lost some money, its ambiguous as to whether or not there are valid claims to the lost money. Total amount "a few million dollars".

What makes this different?

And the examples given are of ventures that Josh worked for 8+ years in. Hardly the mark of a conman.

Many HN participants have left behind more failed ventures or lost more money than this Josh.

Yeah, this is a hit piece against a low level schlub. By west coast standards, in fact, by New York standards this is light-years away from damning levels of failure. I mean, it's in total less than a healthy series a round, and probably less than a hedge fund trader can lose in a bad month without risking his job.

Goldstein (author) writes investigative pieces on the Clintona' hedge fund dealing among other big issues. What on earth possessed him to try and tar this guy?

That's the real story I'd love to read: how to buy or beg the favor of turning a nyt reporter into one's own hatchet man for nickel and dime vendettas. Sheesh.

Full disclosure: I probably have lots of 2nd degree connections to the subject of the article since we were in related schools at the same time, but I don't know him and have no dog in his fight(s).

Just look at real estate development. In every bust many big names lose billions for their investors. Even recently look at the schmucks who bilked investors for the massive failure in Atlantic City (Revel). Yet the developers usually end up coming back just fine and are darlings of the press. Not sure how this hit piece is justified.