There are many things about this article that I really dislike. 1.) The implication that a statistical outlier not being represented is something that would ha

There are many things about this article that I really dislike. 1.) The implication that a statistical outlier not being represented is something that would have been fixed by having more female engineers. How much of an outlier is it for a woman to have a period exceeding 10 days in length? 1 in 15? 1 in 100? Is it not relevant? Would the 14/15 women who are not themselves these statistical outliers be roughly just as likely as men to lack this information? Presumably they would have a chance to be exposed to it by family/friends/relationships, but isn't that the same for the men? This sounds like either a problem with the FitBit team having not done proper research, or this being such a statistical outlier that it's an understandable mistake. Do the programmers on a diabetes bloodsugar reader need to themselves have diabetes, or is it not reasonable to suggest that they should instead be as well informed as needed to build the product? 2.) The implication that the lack of employed female engineers has more to do with anything other than...the lack of female engineers. 3.) The fact that statistical outliers need to be represented in every application for the general public. If there was a nutritional application that didn't account for Celiac's disease, or a running app that didn't properly accommodate somebody's asthma, I'm not so sure that the right idea is to determine that this app needs to cover all such cases. There are market forces at work here, if there is a need for it, i.e. asthmatic runners who are unsatisfied with XYZ apps, then there is an opportunity. If you have longer-than-10 day periods, and FitBit doesn't change, you have a market opportunity. If it doesn't do well...there wasn't enough of a market. Or I guess we can just demand that all apps are built by diabetic asthmatic women to cover our bases.