Aug 8, 2017 · 1 min read
If he holds a PhD, has unwillingness to support his argument with the most rudimentary numbers is even more amazing. In 2015, 17% of technical employees at Google were female. Why? Biological effects as profound as that have failed to show in any research ever seen, so even second-rate intellects move on to other hypotheses in trying to explain what is going on. In the face of this he puts numbers in the too-hard basket, skips them and writes something devoid of value. As an argumentative piece, he wrote something juvenile. As an employee, he has been incredibly disruptive. The only good thing you can say is that he is passionate for an idea, even if that idea is some kind of secret Ayn Rand valley.
