Well “the state of things” is that Microsoft is the world’s most valuable company by market cap. So clearly they’re doing something right, even if they have a h

Well “the state of things” is that Microsoft is the world’s most valuable company by market cap. So clearly they’re doing something right, even if they have a history of poor security going back decades - way before any kind of diversity bias was the norm. Anyway, I read as much of the linked article as I could stomach, but I gave up at this point: > When I began my career, I believed that the systems for determining who got a job or a promotion at a company like Microsoft at least aimed at an ideal of meritocracy I have had these conversations with fuckhead managers in the past. How the hell can we have a meritocracy when non-cis-white-males have far less opportunity to gain the resume points necessary to compete? “Meritocracy” in this sense is, at best, nothing more than a cover for conservatism. A historical lack of diversity obviously has a compounding effect on the skills of a population and the only way to fix that historical wrong is to promote people who would not otherwise have had that opportunity. Instead of railing against diversity quotas, maybe instead you could think about why the fuck they are necessary in the fist place?