> At a different company, he noticed that a team of white engineers from affluent backgrounds chose to delay shipping an Android version of the product because

> At a different company, he noticed that a team of white engineers from affluent backgrounds chose to delay shipping an Android version of the product because they believed they would make less money on the platform. But it turned out that Android users were far more engaged than iOS ones, and the group later regretted prioritizing the wrong platform. Plenty of companies made that bet, especially if we go back a few years. Hell, nintendo just made that bet with super mario run. There are good and bad reasons to do it. I'm not really sure what the point is? These guys were wrong because they were rich white guys as opposed to they were wrong because x? > I’m considered a non-technical founder, despite the fact that I have an engineering degree from Stanford and maybe I guess I don’t look like a technical founder. Are you capable of (and/or interested in) working on the tech side of things? Then why would you not be a technical founder. If you aren't, then does the engineering degree really have any bearing? The steps they took sound reasonable. I'm curious about which were the most effective. > So they built a Slackbot that assigned and circulated dishwashing responsibilities around the entire workforce I'd quit. I hate doing dishes. Can I just agree not to use the dishes? > They decided that the opposite of the word “guys” was not “girls,” and that they would use the word “women.” Unfortunate quirk that guys is fine, but girls is condescending and women sounds awkwardly formal. I wonder if having a female founder has helped. Strong female leader, someone for people to look up to.