i_am_new_here

Thanks for pointing out to me that I did't get something/anything from the word you uttered.

Also thank you for pointing it out and not taking up the chance to start voluptuous chatter, now.

You must be a man of sparse words.

I find it discriminating of you that you distrust any ones ability to do the job. In Japan there are Japanese people. Who should do the job? They of course, why not, they live there. Why shouldn't "some of them" create enough diverse views? What do you want? That people from other countries go to Japan and enrich them? Gentrify and replace them? Will they have/add better perspectives? Will they mix or integrate into the local population while providing more diverse views and creating a more diverse population (also: physically - like "mixed ethnicity babies")?

> Obviously just putting some underqualified person isn't going to work out and it's a bit tautological to state this.

You have nothing to add to my reply so you reply with a tautology and to your own defense you point it out yourself ?!

Diverse often means to accept less qualification for the sake of accomplishing diversity, unfortunately.

It's not the perspectives that matter, its execution. Did you understand this?

I don't see why Japanese men shouldn't be up to the job compared to the groups you listed with their obvious downsides:

younger - lack of experience

female - women to the rescue

international - lack exposure to local customs

"Fresh perspective" / "leaders in the decision making process" (leadership positions) - Hacker News agrees that "it's all about execution" and that "adding more ideas/perspectives" as you suggest here might be rather counterproductive or at least not a benefit.

It's software engineers that get payed a multiple of other (regular) jobs in silicon valley, which sets SV apart from the rest of the world.

People arguing like you are either young, not-male and/or not-native and want one of the financially attractive leadership positions for the money. They don't want or promote diversity anywhere else but in this limited area (leadership positions), which just quickly exposes their true underlying motivation: Hypocrisy and your own greed.

<Women>: Does incredible things, that typically men are way better at (math and sports) and: She even does 2 of them, at the same time and to the very best. Incredible. Bravo!

How plausible/believable. And what an adorable women and a role model for other girls. And we need so many more female role models to inspire as many young girls as possible (ideally: All of them).

Having kids and a family (with a man,... a protector?!) is really lame and needs to be avoided. Top notch careers are much more important. I mean: Who doesn't want to be remembered by the random name that was given to you - First name by your parents, last name by people in the middle ages struggling to keep people apart during rapid population growth. I feel very inspired now.

Thank you journalist (w/m/d) for writing this article.

It is clear that men are all grabbing for these enviable positions just for the sake of it (and not as a means for anything else) and we need to get women there, too.

My information is that there is almost no gender pay gap, if you adjust for special factors.

They need to do the tough man's job to earn more. Women that are already "Women in Tech" (e.g. HR in a TechCompany) need to make other women "also" do a tough (real) IT-job!

Fake women (in tech) are pushing other women to the real (coding) fronts... why is that?

Are guys doing the same?

It probably was suicide by hanging himself.

They want independence but are not independent (from Spain). Otherwise both is right. "Spain" is the country and "Catalan" the region (within Spain).

It would be good journalistic practice if they would not jump to conclusions too quickly, try to influence the public opinion with (their) assumptions or just try to heat the debate by taking a side too early ("suicide"). We are on Hacker News: The upvoted article usually has a high quality/standard, which is a quite positive thing.

To label/dismiss something that might be true (>0%) a "conspiracy theory" doesn't give it justice.

"All conspiracy theories turn out to be true" reverts it to "100% true", then.

Where are we now in the discussion?

Did we make (any) progress?