I have as well, but I'm more of a cynic.
Usually you can trace requirements back to either DEI dependent funding or government contract requirements.
Less common is an attempt to market or build positive brand association by making a public commitment.
With the occasional case where one individual uses their position in a company to sneak their personal agenda in.
Mostly the behaviour is determined by tangible external benefits rather than any kind of real belief that gender ratios should be acknowledged.
I have seen many public transport systems privatised and worsened over time; since there are many ways to play with funding and quality, you can hide a whole lot of bullshit. Frequency, hours, cleaning, security, ticket price, and maintenance... It can be unclear why a service is declining or who is accountable. That's what I mean by easier to understand.
Roads are public in a way that introducing a toll on an existing road is not politically viable, and maintenance issues are easier to spot.
The biggest problem with public transport is usually the public.
Segregated services for commuters are great, but catching a bus to shop/recreation/restaurants is miserable and restrictive.
As as aside, developing mass transit always has the problem of being at the whim of the next political goal (subsidised bus routes especially). Roads are physical easy to understand, so less subject to political vs.
Concrete stairwells are supposed to double as refuges, if you can't climb.
Also devices that allow easier access to an apartment are more acceptable in Japan. In the US there is a much greater need for security oriented design.
When you value a business, part of it is brand and people's habits. The new owners are betting that they can trade in that value for cash, by selling a crap lesser product under the old name, and that this will return faster than a sustainable business.
It's not obviously bad from a finance point, it's just significantly shorter term thinking than the original owner.
This completely ignores higher order effects, if you can't employ someone to do a task at a wage that makes profit, it creates conditions where capital investment in innovation and labour multiplication makes more sense.
It never makes sense to import someone who has less earning potential than any other candidate; at least not in a long term context (it makes plenty of sense for a current business for their own short term profit).
There is a huge difference between defending a patent in a free market and regulatory capture mandating a product.
The patent system is not very compatible with highly regulated markets, it changes the game from choosing to buy something innovative to a non-voluntary overreach.
I think there are a surprising number of people who would use two x16 slots (not the latest generation bandwidth requirements, just the electrical connection to support older products at full speed), one for a GPU, one for something like a networking or storage card. But it makes workstation and server class offerings weaker in comparison.
Mostly the behaviour is determined by tangible external benefits rather than any kind of real belief that gender ratios should be acknowledged.