The article has two major problems. The first is the one you're describing, that there's barely anything substantive at all. The second is that for what evidenc

The article has two major problems. The first is the one you're describing, that there's barely anything substantive at all. The second is that for what evidence that is linked, if you follow those links and actually read the source material they contradict what the author says in pretty blatant ways (Alexander points this out in his response). For one example he didn't cover, the author deliberately mischaracterizes, again, what Damore said in his memo, saying it claimed it was only biological differences that explain the gender disparities in tech. >That week, a Google employee named James Damore wrote a memo arguing that the low number of women in technical positions at the company was a result of biological differences, not anything else — a memo he was later fired over. One Slate Star Codex reader on Reddit noted the similarities to the writing on the blog. There's so much wrong with these two sentences. The first is just flat out false, and that they didn't link to the original material in the piece - but instead to another NYT article, which links to a Vice article which finally has the primary source - is really telling. The second sentence is just ... what? Some redditor noted some similarities? This is breathtakingly embarrassing journalism. Maybe we can attribute it to just lazy prose. Okay, then where is the editor? It's so poorly written that, you're right, calling it a "hit piece" is giving it too much credit.