I find it amusing and depressing that some people out there take it upon themselves, and even earn a living, through continuously re-teaching their readers how to group others (certainly wouldn't want to shine that light inward toward the staff of the Economist) by skin color.

Updated lesson from this article? Being white is no longer the only way to be bad ( or "not great" as the writer puts it ). Now you're bad if you're "white or pale." Sorry, Asians, Jews, and unlucky Mexicans, you're one of us now!

This article's amok boundary-drawing makes me look forward to the days of more women in tech, if not merely so I can see the rags manage to berate them for not somehow conjuring non-whites within their own ranks.

And just look at this atrocious grammar! Please tell me the large number of sentences beginning with the word "But" doesn't belie the writer's lack of insight:

> But beneath this fervour there is often a world of uncertainty. > But many still want to give it another try. > But on the whole the startup world, even more than other forms of business, leaves little room for life beyond work. > But Mr Rao’s analysis goes deeper. > But it puts a different light on startups and accelerators, suggesting that they are less about identifying the next Mr Zuckerberg or Mr Jobs than about providing a new system to train workers for the knowledge economy. > But since most of these businesses are small, so are the absolute numbers of jobs they generate.

You can tell it's a quality article when the publisher manages to omit its author's name!