10 ms·

Unpacking Interview Questions

117 points by williamsmj 6y ago

vector_spaces 6y ago
I misread the domain at first and thought this was going to be a Marxist analysis and takedown of common interview questions from Jacobin Mag. I have to say I am disappointed
stuff4ben 6y ago
I thought these were pretty good. Diversity questions are particularly hard, especially when interviewing an individual contributor who may feel like they have no say in hiring decisions. But it's so much more than just that and even then, as a manager, I would hope my team would hold me accountable around this topic if I wasn't doing a good job at it.
obviouslynotme 6y ago
Explain a Topic At Multiple Levels - This is an excellent question. Communication is an underrated skill in most tech teams. They just complain that others "don't get it." The ability to understand others' points of view and interests and communicate with those in mind is important. Tell Me About a Project You Led - This is another good one. A good related question would be, "What leaders have you had in the past that you admired?" Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion - I don't like it. I support all three, even without the business bonuses. However, the jargon in that community is vast and quickly changing. There's also potential for unintentional landmines. Worse, no sane person on Earth today is going to walk into an interview and tell you they hate those things. Tell Me About a Disagreement - This is another good one. Conflict is present anywhere two or more people do anything. Conflict resolution is a big part of the workplace and how well you do in it. For leaders, you should also add followups on how they help mediate conflict. The Weakness Question - This question is famously poor. In a frictionless vacuum where no one is swayed by concretions, it seems like an excellent question. Everyone has weaknesses that they have to work on. It is the central mechanism of improvement. In practice, you are going to pull in unconscious biases that shouldn't but will effect your decision. Worse, you will lose strong candidates that will see you even asking this question as a red flag. I strongly recommend never asking any version of this question in an interview.
- cobraetor 6y ago
  Why would talking about DEI have potential for unintentional landmines?
  - Smaug123 6y ago
    Well, for example, I got a twinge of nerves on reading the following "red flag": > Only focuses on a single group (e.g. women) to the exclusion of other forms of diversity That is, if you make the mistake of going in too much depth on one particular aspect, then this is a red flag. I could easily imagine myself doing this simply because I have a tendency to answer interview questions depth-first rather than breadth-first. I was also a bit terrified of "when I ask this question of an underrepresented candidate…". Some forms of group identity are outwardly visible; some are not. The author notes how sensitive this subject is, and then also predicates a fifth of the "discussion" section on the assumption that they can reliably make this judgement. And on this "red flag": > Indicates distrust of workplace inclusivity measures like codes of conduct, anti-harassment training, etc. There was a good while when I distrusted all corporate training, simply because the only forms of active corporate training I had been exposed to were these box-checking legal cover-your-arse arrangements. If you've only experienced that kind of training, then of course you have a generalised distrust of it. If you give me a list of criteria on which you are judging me, I will certainly be able to find ways in which I violate those criteria, no matter what the criteria are. (It's exactly the same problem as odd-one-out questions: there's always a way to make something the odd one out, so there's no right answer.) Hence the landmines: you can't know in advance which of those violations are actually meaningful to the interviewer.
- frongpik 6y ago
  DEI questions is a good way to select people that can lie with a straight face. Not disclosing your cards is a valuable skill for managers and to some line employees. Weak candidates bluntly speak their mind and tell more than you ask for. Average candidates conceal their true podition in a cringy way. Strong candidates can smooth talk on the plain speech level and crack impolite jokes in such a way that only few would understand.
pensatoio 6y ago
If you ask a politically loaded question such as one about diversity, in an engineering interview, I would walk out. Those who do so are the reason a divide grows in the USA. Diversity of background and ideas is superb. Diversity of skin color, for skin color’s sake, is racist in the highest degree. Judge a man by his deeds and character, not his race.
- eyelidlessness 6y ago
  Not talking about inclusion is effectively accepting the current inclusion status quo. Talking about it isn’t divisive, it’s being frank about existing division. If you really believe that inclusion is so valuable you should be willing to accept the discomfort of recognizing that it’s not where it should be.
  - cobraetor 6y ago
    I think nobody disagrees that talking about diversity is divisive. But talking about it using critical race theory terminology is.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  Job interviews are filters. Here you've identified this question as an excellent filter all by itself.
- geofft 6y ago
  That's a sign it's a good question. It is, after all, logically impossible for every company to hire the best candidate on the same scale. If you interview people by general aptitude, one company (with the best salary etc.) will get the top folks and everyone else will settle. (It also makes independent interviewing rather useless: each company may as well outsource the job to a single service provider who's good at interviewing and returns a scalar.) So, the effective way to interview, if you happen not to be a monopoly in your field, is to find candidates who are better for your company. Some companies believe diversity of skin color actually matters and demonstrates a serious commitment to avoiding groupthink. Some companies believe they should not be caring about skin color at all. You're looking for a company in the latter group, and they're looking for you. If you give a poor answer to this question, as posed by a company in the first group, it serves the purpose of interviewing - it accurately determines that both you and the company will be unhappy with you being hired at that company.
clarifier123 6y ago
>We know from decades of research that more diverse teams are more successful. I like success. That's a very strong claim. What research? >The teams I’ve liked the most have been the most diverse; the teams I’ve felt the most uncomfortable on are the ones where everyone looks like me. Not surprisingly, for the author, "diversity" is only about how people look like. He also seems to suffer from self-hatred.
- kinkrtyavimoodh 6y ago
  I am an Indian engineer in a tech company in Austin and out of the 8 people in my team 7 are Indians / Asians in their late 20s / early 30s who all followed roughly the same career trajectory (Undergrad in India / China from one of 2-3 universities, followed almost immediately by Masters in the US followed by joining tech jobs in the last 7-8 years). The eighth guy is a white American guy in his 40s who grew up in Alabama, was in the US Air Force for a bit, then did his undergrad in an unrelated field from a relatively unheard-of university, then self-taught programming and worked a few odd IT jobs before landing here. If you ask me, he is the true source of diversity in the team, but pretty sure none of the teams tasked with increasing diversity see it that way.
  - username90 6y ago
    Yeah, if your team is made up of people from USA, France, Russia, India, China and Korea then you have plenty of diversity even if none of them are black. I'd argue that they are more diverse than a team comprised of people grown up in USA with latino, black, white and asian exteriors.
  - eat_veggies 6y ago
    Diversity doesn't mean "non-white," it means "varied." Yes, your team is diverse because of his inclusion, and it's diverse because of yours too. Individual people aren't diverse, teams are. To say that one guy is the source of diversity is like saying that he is the source of the eight-ness of the number of people on your team.
    - 6y ago
z3rgl1ng 6y ago
> "strong performance on this question correlates very highly with high job performance on my teams" sigh.
quicklime 6y ago
> Diversity, equity, and inclusion are important to us. We know that diverse teams are more successful, and we work hard to ensure everyone is treated fairly and respectfully. That’s a bit about what these values mean to us; what do diversity, equity, and inclusion mean to you? Ugh, this question really made me cringe. Interviewers are in a position of power over interviewees, and the whole point of a job interview is to assess a candidate. The fact is that if an interviewer doesn't like the answer, it will reflect negatively on the interviewee. If you're in a majority group, I'd suggest seriously re-thinking whether to ask this question to a candidate from a minority group, at least during an assessment. After they've been onboarded? Sure. But not while you're in a position of power over them.
- eat_veggies 6y ago
  > the whole point of a job interview is to assess a candidate. The fact is that if an interviewer doesn't like the answer, it will reflect negatively on the interviewee. Yeah, they don't ask this question just for fun. They write in the background section that the purpose is "It selects for candidates who share these values [...] if they believe that this is all just political correctness gone wrong, or that white people are really the oppressed ones, they aren’t going to be able to work well with me and my teams." So I'm not sure why they'd wait to do this evaluation until after onboarding. You also seem to think that the only time the company has a position of power over the employee is during the interview process. But generally the boss/HR has power over the worker even after onboarding (a different kind -- to fire rather than hire), so I'm not sure where your power analysis is grounded...
  - cobraetor 6y ago
    I agree that it is definitely something they should bring up as early in the interview process as possible. If a company strongly identifies with neoracism[1], I'd like to avoid wasting my time interviewing with them. And I'm a POC! [1] https://www.persuasion.community/p/john-mcwhorter-the-neoracists https://www.persuasion.community/p/john-mcwhorter-the-neorac...
  - quicklime 6y ago
eyelidlessness 6y ago
I like the framing of the weakness question far more than I was anticipating. It’s usually so lacking in context that it encourages bullshit answers (“my biggest weakness is I’m too dedicated to my work/too humble to take credit”, which isn’t just bullshit to the speaker but tells the interviewer nothing too). I got enough from the article that I felt prompted to be sincere about a very real weakness in my social and career performance just reading along, and would likely have been able to speak to it without too much discomfort. (Specifically that I have a frankness/matter of factness that people often find offputting and make conflict resolution more difficult.)
bt1a 6y ago
> We’re socially conditioned to believe that certain accents – Black accents, Southern accents, strong accents from non-native-English speakers – are indicators of low intelligence. This is bullshit; don’t fall for the trap. Uh, what? Delete this
- cobraetor 6y ago
  That's interesting. As a non-native English speaker, I was surprised to read it as well. Do American natives really think that non-native accents indicate low intelligence?
- eat_veggies 6y ago
  this is a pretty textbook example of unconscious bias and it's very real.
  - readflaggedcomm 6y ago
    Their accusation that "we" are conditioned by it is also real and an unjustified projection coming from the author's own unexamined biases.
    - eat_veggies 6y ago
      How would you like it phrased? Obviously if you're totally unbiased (doubtful), then that advice is not for you and you can skip it.
      - readflaggedcomm 6y ago
        Which implies that I'm being untruthful or lacking introspection of my own guilt, by objecting to this phrasing. By accusing we/us of experiencing a specific unconcious bias, the author has set up a trap. I want it phrased honestly without assumption about the reader.
        zacharycohn 6y ago
b-g-m 6y ago
But what about hiring neurodiverse candidates who are not jerks but just have low EQ?
- frongpik 6y ago
  The logic behind hiring 20% blacks is that there are 20% blacks in the US. Same for hiring 50% women. But by the same logic, we should observe that only few people have IQ around 140 and selectively hiring only this group keeps people of average intelligence in poverty. This take is supported by the going theory that intelligence is assigned at birth in a random manner.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
andyxor 6y ago
What a strange question on diversity, Why does skin color even matter
neilv 6y ago
If the writer is going to enumerate all the "Positive Signs" and "Red Flags" for their interview questions, it seems like they're just making another shibboleth for which people will test-prep. Is that what the writer wants? Is the intent to select for test-prep?
Gunax 6y ago
I was on a team where they asked the weakness question. In discussions afterwards, they used it to basically disqualify any candidate who was honest enough to give a real weakness--even if if was fairly benign like 'sometimes I don't get along with people' or 'sometimes I have anger issues'. I understand that isn't how this author intends it to be used, but effectively it is. Never answer this. It's a trap.
- koonsolo 6y ago
  Exactly. Everybody knows the bullshit of answering this question with "my weakness is that I work too hard" and all that. But it's actually the best answer to give in this case.
koonsolo 6y ago
This diversity thing is really getting on my nerves. I recently had to do a job interview for a programmer, and on his resume he put he worked on some "ethical project". Then during the interview, he asked how our company looked at diversity, and how women should get equal chances and all that. He technically wasn't good enough to make the cut. But even then, I don't want some political complainer in my team. In fact our team is pretty diverse. I helped hire most of them. But we hire the ones who technically make the cut, and look like nice people to work with. Hiring "for diversity" really gives me the cringes. Keep your political bullshit out of my team.
- cobraetor 6y ago
  I find it quite odd that actual diversity doesn't necessarily coincide with a claimed interest[1] in diversity. You don't advertise like all get out about diversity, and yet your team is pretty diverse. But look at the author of this post; he works for a company called Hangar who team is anything but diverse: https://www.hangar.is/team https://www.hangar.is/team [1] This is also called "virtue signalling".
  - koonsolo 6y ago
    What really concerns me is the following: If you know how I select people, you can assume that all of them are good in their job. Nobody was selected because of their background or color of their skin. But if you hire for diversity, you can start questions why certain people are there. Because they are good at their job, or to satisfy the diversity? So in practice, you are discrediting those people, and maybe they don't like to be judged like that. So in effect, such teams that hire for diversity probably end up least diversified.
cobraetor 6y ago
It is quite interesting to note that the author of this post, Jacob Kaplan-Moss, works as a principal engineer at a company named Hangar. Take a look at their Team page at https://www.hangar.is/team https://www.hangar.is/team and judge for yourself how "diverse" they currently are.

117 points by williamsmj 6y ago

I misread the domain at first and thought this was going to be a Marxist analysis and takedown of common interview questions from Jacobin Mag. I have to say I am disappointed

stuff4ben 6y ago

I thought these were pretty good. Diversity questions are particularly hard, especially when interviewing an individual contributor who may feel like they have no say in hiring decisions. But it's so much more than just that and even then, as a manager, I would hope my team would hold me accountable around this topic if I wasn't doing a good job at it.

obviouslynotme 6y ago

Explain a Topic At Multiple Levels - This is an excellent question. Communication is an underrated skill in most tech teams. They just complain that others "don't get it." The ability to understand others' points of view and interests and communicate with those in mind is important. Tell Me About a Project You Led - This is another good one. A good related question would be, "What leaders have you had in the past that you admired?" Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion - I don't like it. I support all three, even without the business bonuses. However, the jargon in that community is vast and quickly changing. There's also potential for unintentional landmines. Worse, no sane person on Earth today is going to walk into an interview and tell you they hate those things. Tell Me About a Disagreement - This is another good one. Conflict is present anywhere two or more people do anything. Conflict resolution is a big part of the workplace and how well you do in it. For leaders, you should also add followups on how they help mediate conflict. The Weakness Question - This question is famously poor. In a frictionless vacuum where no one is swayed by concretions, it seems like an excellent question. Everyone has weaknesses that they have to work on. It is the central mechanism of improvement. In practice, you are going to pull in unconscious biases that shouldn't but will effect your decision. Worse, you will lose strong candidates that will see you even asking this question as a red flag. I strongly recommend never asking any version of this question in an interview.

cobraetor 6y ago
Why would talking about DEI have potential for unintentional landmines?
- Smaug123 6y ago
  Well, for example, I got a twinge of nerves on reading the following "red flag": > Only focuses on a single group (e.g. women) to the exclusion of other forms of diversity That is, if you make the mistake of going in too much depth on one particular aspect, then this is a red flag. I could easily imagine myself doing this simply because I have a tendency to answer interview questions depth-first rather than breadth-first. I was also a bit terrified of "when I ask this question of an underrepresented candidate…". Some forms of group identity are outwardly visible; some are not. The author notes how sensitive this subject is, and then also predicates a fifth of the "discussion" section on the assumption that they can reliably make this judgement. And on this "red flag": > Indicates distrust of workplace inclusivity measures like codes of conduct, anti-harassment training, etc. There was a good while when I distrusted all corporate training, simply because the only forms of active corporate training I had been exposed to were these box-checking legal cover-your-arse arrangements. If you've only experienced that kind of training, then of course you have a generalised distrust of it. If you give me a list of criteria on which you are judging me, I will certainly be able to find ways in which I violate those criteria, no matter what the criteria are. (It's exactly the same problem as odd-one-out questions: there's always a way to make something the odd one out, so there's no right answer.) Hence the landmines: you can't know in advance which of those violations are actually meaningful to the interviewer.
frongpik 6y ago
DEI questions is a good way to select people that can lie with a straight face. Not disclosing your cards is a valuable skill for managers and to some line employees. Weak candidates bluntly speak their mind and tell more than you ask for. Average candidates conceal their true podition in a cringy way. Strong candidates can smooth talk on the plain speech level and crack impolite jokes in such a way that only few would understand.

pensatoio 6y ago

If you ask a politically loaded question such as one about diversity, in an engineering interview, I would walk out. Those who do so are the reason a divide grows in the USA. Diversity of background and ideas is superb. Diversity of skin color, for skin color’s sake, is racist in the highest degree. Judge a man by his deeds and character, not his race.

eyelidlessness 6y ago
Not talking about inclusion is effectively accepting the current inclusion status quo. Talking about it isn’t divisive, it’s being frank about existing division. If you really believe that inclusion is so valuable you should be willing to accept the discomfort of recognizing that it’s not where it should be.
- cobraetor 6y ago
  I think nobody disagrees that talking about diversity is divisive. But talking about it using critical race theory terminology is.
jessaustin 6y ago
Job interviews are filters. Here you've identified this question as an excellent filter all by itself.
geofft 6y ago
That's a sign it's a good question. It is, after all, logically impossible for every company to hire the best candidate on the same scale. If you interview people by general aptitude, one company (with the best salary etc.) will get the top folks and everyone else will settle. (It also makes independent interviewing rather useless: each company may as well outsource the job to a single service provider who's good at interviewing and returns a scalar.) So, the effective way to interview, if you happen not to be a monopoly in your field, is to find candidates who are better for your company. Some companies believe diversity of skin color actually matters and demonstrates a serious commitment to avoiding groupthink. Some companies believe they should not be caring about skin color at all. You're looking for a company in the latter group, and they're looking for you. If you give a poor answer to this question, as posed by a company in the first group, it serves the purpose of interviewing - it accurately determines that both you and the company will be unhappy with you being hired at that company.

clarifier123 6y ago

>We know from decades of research that more diverse teams are more successful. I like success. That's a very strong claim. What research? >The teams I’ve liked the most have been the most diverse; the teams I’ve felt the most uncomfortable on are the ones where everyone looks like me. Not surprisingly, for the author, "diversity" is only about how people look like. He also seems to suffer from self-hatred.

kinkrtyavimoodh 6y ago
I am an Indian engineer in a tech company in Austin and out of the 8 people in my team 7 are Indians / Asians in their late 20s / early 30s who all followed roughly the same career trajectory (Undergrad in India / China from one of 2-3 universities, followed almost immediately by Masters in the US followed by joining tech jobs in the last 7-8 years). The eighth guy is a white American guy in his 40s who grew up in Alabama, was in the US Air Force for a bit, then did his undergrad in an unrelated field from a relatively unheard-of university, then self-taught programming and worked a few odd IT jobs before landing here. If you ask me, he is the true source of diversity in the team, but pretty sure none of the teams tasked with increasing diversity see it that way.
- username90 6y ago
  Yeah, if your team is made up of people from USA, France, Russia, India, China and Korea then you have plenty of diversity even if none of them are black. I'd argue that they are more diverse than a team comprised of people grown up in USA with latino, black, white and asian exteriors.
- eat_veggies 6y ago
  Diversity doesn't mean "non-white," it means "varied." Yes, your team is diverse because of his inclusion, and it's diverse because of yours too. Individual people aren't diverse, teams are. To say that one guy is the source of diversity is like saying that he is the source of the eight-ness of the number of people on your team.
  - 6y ago

z3rgl1ng 6y ago

> "strong performance on this question correlates very highly with high job performance on my teams" sigh.

quicklime 6y ago

> Diversity, equity, and inclusion are important to us. We know that diverse teams are more successful, and we work hard to ensure everyone is treated fairly and respectfully. That’s a bit about what these values mean to us; what do diversity, equity, and inclusion mean to you? Ugh, this question really made me cringe. Interviewers are in a position of power over interviewees, and the whole point of a job interview is to assess a candidate. The fact is that if an interviewer doesn't like the answer, it will reflect negatively on the interviewee. If you're in a majority group, I'd suggest seriously re-thinking whether to ask this question to a candidate from a minority group, at least during an assessment. After they've been onboarded? Sure. But not while you're in a position of power over them.

eat_veggies 6y ago
> the whole point of a job interview is to assess a candidate. The fact is that if an interviewer doesn't like the answer, it will reflect negatively on the interviewee. Yeah, they don't ask this question just for fun. They write in the background section that the purpose is "It selects for candidates who share these values [...] if they believe that this is all just political correctness gone wrong, or that white people are really the oppressed ones, they aren’t going to be able to work well with me and my teams." So I'm not sure why they'd wait to do this evaluation until after onboarding. You also seem to think that the only time the company has a position of power over the employee is during the interview process. But generally the boss/HR has power over the worker even after onboarding (a different kind -- to fire rather than hire), so I'm not sure where your power analysis is grounded...
- cobraetor 6y ago
  I agree that it is definitely something they should bring up as early in the interview process as possible. If a company strongly identifies with neoracism[1], I'd like to avoid wasting my time interviewing with them. And I'm a POC! [1] https://www.persuasion.community/p/john-mcwhorter-the-neoracists https://www.persuasion.community/p/john-mcwhorter-the-neorac...
- quicklime 6y ago

eyelidlessness 6y ago

I like the framing of the weakness question far more than I was anticipating. It’s usually so lacking in context that it encourages bullshit answers (“my biggest weakness is I’m too dedicated to my work/too humble to take credit”, which isn’t just bullshit to the speaker but tells the interviewer nothing too). I got enough from the article that I felt prompted to be sincere about a very real weakness in my social and career performance just reading along, and would likely have been able to speak to it without too much discomfort. (Specifically that I have a frankness/matter of factness that people often find offputting and make conflict resolution more difficult.)

bt1a 6y ago

> We’re socially conditioned to believe that certain accents – Black accents, Southern accents, strong accents from non-native-English speakers – are indicators of low intelligence. This is bullshit; don’t fall for the trap. Uh, what? Delete this

cobraetor 6y ago
That's interesting. As a non-native English speaker, I was surprised to read it as well. Do American natives really think that non-native accents indicate low intelligence?
eat_veggies 6y ago
this is a pretty textbook example of unconscious bias and it's very real.
- readflaggedcomm 6y ago
  Their accusation that "we" are conditioned by it is also real and an unjustified projection coming from the author's own unexamined biases.
  - eat_veggies 6y ago
    How would you like it phrased? Obviously if you're totally unbiased (doubtful), then that advice is not for you and you can skip it.
    - readflaggedcomm 6y ago
      Which implies that I'm being untruthful or lacking introspection of my own guilt, by objecting to this phrasing. By accusing we/us of experiencing a specific unconcious bias, the author has set up a trap. I want it phrased honestly without assumption about the reader.
      - zacharycohn 6y ago

b-g-m 6y ago

But what about hiring neurodiverse candidates who are not jerks but just have low EQ?

frongpik 6y ago
The logic behind hiring 20% blacks is that there are 20% blacks in the US. Same for hiring 50% women. But by the same logic, we should observe that only few people have IQ around 140 and selectively hiring only this group keeps people of average intelligence in poverty. This take is supported by the going theory that intelligence is assigned at birth in a random manner.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

andyxor 6y ago

What a strange question on diversity, Why does skin color even matter

neilv 6y ago

If the writer is going to enumerate all the "Positive Signs" and "Red Flags" for their interview questions, it seems like they're just making another shibboleth for which people will test-prep. Is that what the writer wants? Is the intent to select for test-prep?

Gunax 6y ago

I was on a team where they asked the weakness question. In discussions afterwards, they used it to basically disqualify any candidate who was honest enough to give a real weakness--even if if was fairly benign like 'sometimes I don't get along with people' or 'sometimes I have anger issues'. I understand that isn't how this author intends it to be used, but effectively it is. Never answer this. It's a trap.

koonsolo 6y ago
Exactly. Everybody knows the bullshit of answering this question with "my weakness is that I work too hard" and all that. But it's actually the best answer to give in this case.

koonsolo 6y ago

This diversity thing is really getting on my nerves. I recently had to do a job interview for a programmer, and on his resume he put he worked on some "ethical project". Then during the interview, he asked how our company looked at diversity, and how women should get equal chances and all that. He technically wasn't good enough to make the cut. But even then, I don't want some political complainer in my team. In fact our team is pretty diverse. I helped hire most of them. But we hire the ones who technically make the cut, and look like nice people to work with. Hiring "for diversity" really gives me the cringes. Keep your political bullshit out of my team.

cobraetor 6y ago
I find it quite odd that actual diversity doesn't necessarily coincide with a claimed interest[1] in diversity. You don't advertise like all get out about diversity, and yet your team is pretty diverse. But look at the author of this post; he works for a company called Hangar who team is anything but diverse: https://www.hangar.is/team https://www.hangar.is/team [1] This is also called "virtue signalling".
- koonsolo 6y ago
  What really concerns me is the following: If you know how I select people, you can assume that all of them are good in their job. Nobody was selected because of their background or color of their skin. But if you hire for diversity, you can start questions why certain people are there. Because they are good at their job, or to satisfy the diversity? So in practice, you are discrediting those people, and maybe they don't like to be judged like that. So in effect, such teams that hire for diversity probably end up least diversified.

cobraetor 6y ago

It is quite interesting to note that the author of this post, Jacob Kaplan-Moss, works as a principal engineer at a company named Hangar. Take a look at their Team page at https://www.hangar.is/team https://www.hangar.is/team and judge for yourself how "diverse" they currently are.