[rewqfdsa]

> the data solution proposed in the article is "interviewers rate interviewees in a few different dimensions," which is not any less arbitrary.

This article's headline reveals the spin the HN community is trying to put on it. Many people in SF like to attack the very idea of meritocracy, because if you admit that meritocracy is a good idea, you're implicitly endorsing the idea that people have different levels of merit, and thus that between-group differences in representation might be due to something other than discrimination.

[minimaxir]

The real issue I have is that only a few of the other comments in this HN thread are looking at the data analysis presented in the article and are just taking the headline as gospel.