In fact, lots of points made in this post seem to sound as though they are factual, but I'm not sure they are and would likely argue the opposite point of the author:
"The real problem here is that we increasingly live in a world where technology companies are valued on emotional whims and promises of unbelievable future growth."
Technology companies are almost universally about promise and potential and always have been. Read Crossing the Chasm to understand why that is. At the time that the private market investors care about them, they are so early in the selling motions that their early success in a tiny subset of the market is indicative of later potential. That's why VCs exist. To see something with early potential, pay a premium (at times) to get a part of it, foster it's development, and then ride it into reality and receive a terrific return for the foresight and fortitude.
The pattern recognition there is unmistakeable. Where it gets challenged is in the fickle and finicky consumer market where externalities are more likely to cause massive changes in momentum (See: Path can't maintain the momentum of fundraising).
"A surge on IPO day is good of course, but 15-20% is more than enough; 75% simply means the company was mis-priced and that Twitter left over a billion in cash on the table."
This is also not a factually true statement. Because a small float was offered, and demand was prescriptive by the bankers, it's impossible to say that because of how it ended, trying to raise the price to $40 would have resulted in the same outcome.
If Twitter wanted to fully maximize their first day gains, there are dutch style IPO auctions that can be done to better match demand for an offering. Google did this.
I'm not going to continue, but I guess this is a great headline with a poorly made point. I'm not sure what the goal here was.