[proveanegative]

>He also says people with strong accents are bad founders

More accurately, he said that people who fail to improve their accent over time are likely to be bad founders. I don't have a strong belief about this hypothesis one way or another but I see no reason to dismiss it out of hand (expect for signaling).

>we shouldn't allow women to be founders today because they probably haven't been hackers for 10 years

That "we" shouldn't allow women to be founders is not just an uncharitable interpretation of PG's words, it's a downright implausible one.

[mhurron]

> That "we" shouldn't allow women to be founders is not just an uncharitable interpretation of PG's words

It's not that uncharitable, but saying the issue is with women only is too narrow of a critique. He said anyone who is going to be worth it as a founder will find computers and be programming them by the time they enter their teens. Anyone else clearly isn't into it.

So it's not just women, it's poorer people too. Is people who grew up in a house without a computer or had luddite parents. Its people that didn't realize this was something they were interested in until later. They're all people who shouldn't be founders.

[jwdunne]

The context of the interview is important. From what I understand, he was asked how we can increase the number of female tech founders. I took his reply to mean that thhere isn't much we can do about increasing the numbers of female founders because the amount of females interested in computers from their teenage years has been extremely low compared to males in the field. It makes a lot more sense.

[kjs3]

They're all people who shouldn't be founders.

I can't tell if this is satire.