[dstola]

Asking rhetorical questions of this nature is not achieving anything except airing your hurt sensibilities. People can have opinions other than the ones you hold and I already outlined fairly clearly in my original post what I think.

Heterogeneity is bad for startups because of the need to have no friction communication and shared goals/ideals/experiences. It does _not_ mean that diversity is bad in a big company or overall.

[dagmx]

You haven't outlined where you consider the extents of "being homogeneous".

Otherwise homogeneous is whatever demographic you prescribe to and is entirely a self serving concept.

[dstola]

> Otherwise homogeneous is whatever demographic you prescribe to and is entirely a self serving concept

Whats wrong with this? I like working closely with people that understand me just by body language and completely frictionless communication. You'd be surprised how valuable that is when you're solving a P0 breakage at 3am.

[dagmx]

So you're saying you can't get on equally well with people outside your demographic? You wouldn't even give them a chance based on not being part of your demographics?

There's also a difference between how you pick your friends and how you hire employees. You were advocating that hiring homogeneously is beneficial. In and off itself, that's discriminatory.

And still you refuse to commit to what is the extents of "homogeneous". Is it ethnicity? Language? Gender? Sexuality? Nationality?

Your post also suggested that heterogeneous work forces , even if you qualify it as applying only to startups, work at an interior level to homogeneous ones. Again, that's implying that different demographics can't work well together. But clearly that can't apply across the board. Or women and men could never work together. So what's the extents of your statement?