Seems like a grammatical error in the article. They have 20 now, which is about 18% of their eng team, and I guess they had 4 to start with. This is ~+450% grow

Seems like a grammatical error in the article. They have 20 now, which is about 18% of their eng team, and I guess they had 4 to start with. This is ~+450% growth but it's off such a negligible base (~5% assuming they also hired some men that year) that the whole "500% growth" claim is only interesting as a marketing statement, so it kind of undercuts the rest of the article's value. It's like a school with one minority student out 100 letting in two more and then bragging about "200% growth in minority students." I'm not taking away from what they did - just how they're positioning it based on a growth figure.