That's what the article says.
The problem is they want a diverse workforce. So the question becomes how do they hire for that?
The problem is they want a diverse workforce. So the question becomes how do they hire for that?
I'm sure the vast majority of companies want the exact same thing but there comes a point where you simply have to accept that we work in a significantly male dominated industry and to get to a point where more than 20% of your staff are female means you have to compromise somewhere in order to achieve that balance. Unfortunately that compromise isn't always going to be appropriate.
I don't know of a right way to get more women into the IT space, but the diversity requirements imposed on businesses don't seem to have the effect that seems to have been intended.
Yes, that's what they are trying to do. Find out how. How do they signal to that group of people they want effectively, without weighting that group over others (such as by advertising only to that select group, or through other selective means).
It is, as you note, the only bit people who don't read the article will read. (And as it happens, I did read it, but don't let that stop you from jumping to conclusions.) That includes people who don't click through from the HN front page, but the message will lodge in their brains regardless.
It is also, presumably, what the author feels is a good one sentence summary of the article: he cannot hire women, because it is illegal... so he has no choice but to hire men only from now on (subtext: stop blaming him for the 15-1 gender imbalance at his company, nothing to do with him, honest).
Another way of putting this: if the author knows full well that it is NOT discriminatory to employ women, why did he lie to us in the article's most prominent sentence?