"Ok, here's the deal.
Everyone that gets through to a second round of interviews at Google is more than qualified to do the job."
First, when I was there, (2015-6), the second round was for those who were borderline after the first round. In my case, there was one round. Second, no one I spoke with about hiring at Google, and it was a constant topic of conversation, indicated agreement with that statement. Certainly, the view was that in general Google over-filters, but the idea that Google never hires someone who turns out not to be able to do the job is ridiculous. The most common adjective regarding the process was "random". Actually, one of my interviewers expressed scepticism to me about the hiring process during the hiring process!
Google's internal culture is well to the left of the Democratic party. They proudly discriminate against whites & males, calling it "affirmative action", and justify it through the usual means. Not everyone can long tolerate such.
You spend half of the first page of your article stating that you are not competent to actually delve into the topic---and then you proceed to delve into the topic. In the comments, you have abandoned all pretence of modesty, and repeatedly played the role of expert.
"Damore's CV reveals an extremely privileged existence: a chess champion with a degree from the University of Illinois, a master’s in systems biology from Harvard, an intern at Princeton, a researcher at MIT and then a software engineer at Google."
How on earth does being a chess champion require that one privileged? Do blacks and women throw matches for to their male white opponents? What it is far more likely to require is that you have a high IQ and be on the autism spectrum. More on that in a bit. As for the his universities, again, your remote cognition is truly astounding. He would be privileged to have been in these programs if he had a lackluster academic performance, and was admitted anyway. But the chess championship strongly indicates not just academic aptitude, but actual achievement in line with admission to these programs based on his skills and achievements. You have no idea what kind of childhood he had, or what he did or what was done for him relative to these achievements. The claim of privilege based on these four data is outrageous.
But yes. Chess champion. Again, very much likely to be high IQ and on the spectrum. We are genetically disposed to have a very hard time leaving systemic errors with large effects alone. I managed keep my head down just enough to not be let go like he was. Probably.