I don't think walking away from all your stock vs. a company walking away from a deal that would account for a small fraction of its profits is a fair comparison.
A more fair comparison would be asking if employees would be willing to have their stock decrease in value 10% in exchange for their company being more moral. I expect many employees would take such an exchange, although not all.
My take is that the purpose is not to actually close a sale before building, but to make sure that you could actually close a sale.
The article makes the correct point that many people confuse "being sort of close to closing a sale" with actually closing a sale, and these people may waste time building a product that clients are only sort of interested in but aren't willing to actually pay for.
This makes perfect sense to me. From what I've seen anecdotally, it seems most people can work 80-hour weeks at full productivity for maybe one or two weeks, tops. After that, the fatigue starts to set in and that person's performance starts to decline. In the long run, the person working 80 hour weeks isn't getting much more done than someone working far fewer hours, simply because during those 80 hours they are operating at greatly diminished mental capacity.
I disagree that the world has been made safer by the US playing world police for the past 70 years. I could list examples from Central and South America, the Middle East, Africa, southeast Asia, etc. but you probably understand where I'm going.
The US should not be out droning people in other countries except in explicit self defense ("they might have been going to attack us" doesn't count). That is my opinion, you are free to disagree with it. If "the goal is to kill fewer people," the best way to do that is to... not kill people.
Also, the fact that representatives I voted for voted in favor of extrajudicial killings of people in other countries is not something I'm happy about. I wish every day that the US could abolish its first past the post election system so that I could vote for candidates I actually agree with rather than being forced to vote for someone I sort of agree with.
A more fair comparison would be asking if employees would be willing to have their stock decrease in value 10% in exchange for their company being more moral. I expect many employees would take such an exchange, although not all.