Sure. The point is just the naivete implied by being surprised that someone would invest in an Etherpad clone, as if anyone was likely to have simply invested in an Etherpad clone.

I see people all the time on HN who think that the logic of a situation inescapably reduces to a single, simple statement or set of axioms which coincidentally agree with their own viewpoint. They are genuinely shocked and bewildered that a large segment of the population would fail to reach the same, simple-to-reach conclusion, and from this they conclude that everyone who does not arrive at that conclusion is defective.

Even if 50%+ of the opinion-holding population disagrees.

Because they are unmitigated narcissists, it never enters their mind that perhaps there are factors unseen to them that make the analysis more complicated for those other people.

I think this is related to what Nassim Taleb calls "epistemological arrogance" -- refusing to question the validity of one's own knowledge, despite significant evidence that one's knowledge may be insufficient or invalid, e.g. 50%+ of the population has a different opinion, or people with a compelling need for high-quality knowledge (VCs, in this case) are arriving at different conclusions.

For concrete examples of this, see the comments on HN article which involves a discussion of race or gender relations.

You do raise the important point that one should never assume one knows everything, but 50%+ of the opinion-holding population is wrong about a very large set of ideas (though which 50%+ varies from idea to idea). As such, the fact alone that the majority of a population disagrees with an idea should carry little weight when deciding whether to keep or abandon an idea.

Agreed. However, that fact should give you pause, and if you reject the majority opinion (or merely a plurality, or just widely-held) you should be able to articulate a solid reason as to why it deserves rejection.