The SAT scores provided by the parent comment is official data. It is not "data" as you connote it to be. Just follow the Government stats linked he published.
The conclusion of the parent comment is not unwarranted. Tech companies pride themselves in hiring only the best and there is strong statistical correlation between SAT scores or any other standardization test vs academic/professional performance.
Tech companies want the best now, it doesn't matter if some group of people are best due to inherent awesomeness or lot of privilege or both or neither. Similarly it doesn't matter if some group of people are not among the best due to financial hardship in their families, racial biases against them.
In the current paradigm, tech companies should either hire the best or hire for diversity. They cannot do both until the underlying society has already changed.
Is pointing out racial/gender differences in SAT scores or IQ tests or in hiring at Facebook/Google/Amazon/Microsoft equivalent to being a racist?
And banning for a post that provides evidence is ridiculous. You should apply for a government job in Turkey.
Racism implies an overarching ideology. A true racist would say something like, "White employees are better than black employees."
Y Combinator has never suggested that minorities are categorically better employees. Preferring to hire from minority groups has many benefits unrelated to race: increased diversity boosts profits[1], for starters. There's a huge difference between racism (trying to keep minorities out of your office) than what you're calling "reverse racism" (trying to have a diverse office).
1. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090331091252.h...
The claim that race doesn't exist is simply false. We can talk about whether or not it's useful to make policy decisions based on race, but if we're respecting the data, we can't say that there are no coherent human population groupings smaller than homo sapiens or that these groups do not align with traditionally-understood "race".
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/
It's incredibly frustrating to see well-intentioned people just flatly deny facts about the world. The mistrust and resentment this denial causes makes it much more difficult to get useful messages across.
My assertion is that everyone is a mixture, which is true. People exist on a continuum of race without discrete borders[2].
1. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-c...
2. http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
The issue 'race is correlated with X' is not materially affected by how exactly race (especially its borders) is defined and taxonomical problems - it's important in it's own regard, but in this regard, it's not the core problem, it's a red herring distracting from the core question of "does race affect X'; and that question is the same, with the same answers, no matter if in your analysis you choose to model race as discrete borders or as a continuum.
If your test can accurately group "Hispanics" which no-one actually claims is a race, then it doesn't prove that any other grouping it finds is a "race", however that is defined.
This is not the way to an open-minded and open-hearted discussion about the truth; it's a tangent to yet another generic ideological flamewar. That violates the HN guidelines.
Since you've done this repeatedly before and don't appear to have any other purpose in commenting here, we've banned your account. Please stop creating new accounts to break the HN guidelines with.