You can’t fix diversity in tech without fixing the technical interview

How diverse would you say your friend/acquaintance group is? Are they from the same background as you? Do they have similar life stories? If not, how can you possibly imagine that you're not just soaking in confirmation bias?

Don't like my opinion? How about someone else's opinion? https://sockpuppet.org/blog/2015/03/06/the-hiring-post/

There are countless examples of talented people who have been ill-served by the hiring environment and tech culture we have today. For every one of them that gets lucky and finds success through non-traditional hiring practices at a great company (for example) you have to wonder how many others (others who live where there is less opportunity, etc.) are just passed by and left behind by the system.

Your attitude is very much a "let them eat cake" attitude. You look around and you say "everyone I know is successful, what are all these other people's problems?" Trust me, there are poor people out there, there are disadvantaged people out there, and partly because of unfairness built into the economy and our culture. And that extends even into the tech world. There are tons of talented people who are unemployed, underemployed, or otherwise disadvantaged simply because they don't match the traditional model of what a talented tech person looks like.

The easiest way to fix "diversity in tech" would be to reduce the number of H1B visas, which in the tech sector overwhelmingly go to overwhelmingly overrepresented Asians.

But in practice, "diversity" is ~exclusively used as an anti-white & especially anti-white-male cudgel, so of course that will not happen.

I found the article interesting and it sync'd with my experience in one significant way. When I started doing interviews after nearly a decade at the same job I was way out of practice. I blew an interview at Google, I still feel embarrassed thinking about it. But then I upped my game, by taking Coursera classes on algorithms, hacker rank, etc. I really worked on it. I ended up getting so much better. Got a good job. As for the article, it is interesting to me that women are 7x more likely to give up after blowing an interview. Obviously they don't realize how much practice makes perfect.

Do you not understand that these are not comparable things? Your position is that no one in tech is generally ill-served by the system, which is backed up by your own personal experience. I've shared with you the fact that I've seen many examples of people ill-served by the system. That is a direct counter-example against your position, and as such invalidates your claim.

The only way it doesn't is if I'm lying. Are you calling me a liar? Or are you just too narrow-minded to imagine that there are experiences outside of the bubble you live in?

Are you claiming that my experiences and observations are too narrow and un-representative of the industry whereas yours are more general and representative? By what basis do you make that claim?

Edit: Evaluate it from a logical perspective. There are two hypotheses: that iniquity in hiring in tech don't exist, and that they do exist and are somewhat common. Then evaluate the "evidence". On the one hand we have your experience, where you've seen a lack of iniquity, on the other we have mine, where I've seen plenty of examples of iniquity. And we have the example I gave of other observations of iniquity, and the evidence from the article for this whole discussion, which also highlights examples of iniquity. If iniquity was common, we would still expect some situations where it was locally uncommon, especially among people of similar cultural/socio-economic backgrounds, so you would not expect a complete absence of perspectives like yours, you'd expect a mix of perspectives. If iniquity was uncommon, you'd expect that there would be very few perspectives with examples of iniquity. The only way the evidence in front of us makes sense under that hypothesis is if I'm a unicorn with utterly unusual and unique experiences, as are the examples from the article and from the sources I've brought up. That is a much less intellectually tenable position, to claim that all of the evidence against your favored hypothesis doesn't matter because it's all outliers or otherwise unreprestantive. Meanwhile, how do you explain the statistics which show that there are systematic iniquities in the system? How do you explain the countless stories with examples of people who have been ill-served by the system as it exists? Your claim seems to be incredibly weak and based on nothing more than a refusal to accept that anything outside of your own personal experience is real or important.

It could be much worse. Simply making random changes and hoping it is an improvement rather than making things worse is not sensible.