I've seen Steve's talk. Like all historical accounts it's just a story. It pulls some details into the foreground and pushes the rest back. Other stories arrange the details differently, for example marking Silicon Valley's beginning quite a bit earlier, with the founding of HP, a decade before the Department of Defense existed. Steve's version isn't some transcendental truth, and people aren't wrong to disagree with it or with you.
Narrative and fact are two distinct aspects of history which work together. Portraying the heavily referenced and fact-laden linked article / talk as "just story" borders on dishonesty by intentionally ignoring the facts presented - the most interesting part. Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How.
> Steve's version isn't some transcendental truth
I don't see anywhere I make such a claim. "Silicon Valley" is a narrative. My point has been that the facts paint a deeper and more complex history than that narrative provides. Have a nice day!
