[lkdjjdjjjdskjd]

"The point is, we need to build systems that enables geniuses to be discovered regardless of races, resume, age, skintone, college."

I was referring to that. It is a hard problem, not simply a matter of hiring more ethnically diverse people. If you just say "we need a better system", frankly I consider it a fluff article. There is no actionable information in it. It would be like saying "we need to create better cancer treatments" - yeah, sure, but HOW?

"We need a fair and level capitalist system that reduces barriers-to-entry for innovative companies and stops monopolistic practices."

I am not convinced our current system is unfair. At least the article doesn't provide any evidence for it, as I said. It seems to me all sorts of companies are trying to improve opportunities for everyone (YCombinator Startup School, MOOCs come to mind). The lack of opportunities for some people is not because of unfairness, but because we don't know how to do it better yet.

But who is "unfair" here? Again - if nobody would have created a space agency for Tom Mueller to work for, would it have been unfair? And who would have been to blame? I really don't think fairness is the dominant issue here.

[Animats]

"The point is, we need to build systems that enables geniuses to be discovered regardless of races, resume, age, skintone, college."

Which the US did in the 1960s, out of fear that the USSR was gaining. Heavy IQ testing and attempts to identify gifted students. Now it's all about "no child left behind", trying to do something for the losers.

[lkdjjdjjjdskjd]

How did that turn out? My impression is we simply don't know enough about creating prodigies yet.

There is the Polgar/Ericsson approach, but it may be too narrow. It may enable us to create, say, chess prodigies - but how do we pick the fields for people to become prodigies in? Also, it might not be economically feasible. I think Polgar educated his kids as a full time job. Can't do that with everybody.