It's kind of hard to take this article about the future seriously, given that it doesn't even get the past right. Claiming "the pipeline problem has been debunked" - has it? And saying that Pao's lawsuit meant anything, considering she (as an individual) lost it for obvious reasons.
Also, this quote from Pao: "And since gender is non-binary, at least 5% of a company’s workforce should identify as such" Eh? How does this follow?