Hacker News Reader

Comment by lolinder | Hacker News Reader

It's worth noting that the dad also gave his son a job at his company while the kid was still in high school. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but it does show that the father is heavily invested in this kid and willing to act affirmatively to give him a leg up, which means I personally would not count this as additional testimony backing up the story.

The dad's testimony doesn't make it less likely to be true, but it's not high quality evidence in favor.

Edit: I'm fine with downvotes, but do everyone a favor and explain why you disagree. It's a bit disheartening that every comment that doesn't go full on pitchfork gets squashed with no justification other than 'failure to light a torch'. We can be better than that.

View on HN

I'm pretty sure that the (presumed) father would be heavily invested in his kid, regardless of whether or not he gave him a job while he was in HS.

Certainly we should look at someone else's (especially a relative's) corroboration of the story with some skepticism; ideally we could see the emails themselves.

But really, OP should contact a lawyer ASAP.

Right, but I do think that the fact that he gave his son a job in high school makes his testimony even more unreliable than a typical parental relationship. Maybe the kid really is that good, but it's more likely that the dad was willing to sacrifice a bit of his company's time to support his son. That's not a decision that every father would make—not even every supportive father—so I think it's relevant here.

Someone else pointed out that the framework OP used in the project is the creation of his dad as well: https://github.com/SharpLogic/LightNap

> Maybe the kid really is that good, but it's more likely that the dad was willing to sacrifice a bit of his company's time to support his son.

I haven't looked to see what position the son has at his father's business or the nature of the business itself so I can't comment on specifics. I will say, however, that it isn't uncommon for parents to employ their kids under the table for below market wage commensurate with their lack of experience. If a job gets half done for a quarter of the cost (no taxes, benefits, etc) then for many people it's a win, not to mention that the employer/parent has a captive employee and the employee/kid has early job history and walking around money.

It's also not uncommon for many parents to employ their kids over the table at exactly or above market rate and let the kid develop experience and get paid at the expense of the parent's other employees. This is legal in most cases, but that doesn't mean that every parent would do it—I personally would steer well clear of this kind of arrangement to avoid even the appearance of nepotism.

With either type of arrangement, I think it does tell you something about the parent-child relationship, which in turn does influence how you should take the parent's testimony.

> at the expense of the parent's other employees

rather at the expense of the business owners, which may well be the parent themselves? (ok fine the other employees could have equity in the business, but other than that)

I've been at companies where the owner prioritized their family over the business and the other employees. It's a sucky place to work.

Sucky, sure, but entirely within the moral and legal rights of the owners to do so.

Seems like a normal and expected parental relationship to me. I would be suspect of the fathers that didn't do so.

You’re being downvoted for poor critical thinking in this case, which led you to write a comment that doesn’t add to the conversation.

Of course the father is “heavily invested” in his son. That comes from decades of raising him, diapers, dinners, driving and him around, and probably also sharing 50% of his genes.

It's less a lack of critical thinking and more an overabundance of cautious wording to avoid unnecessary offense.

I'm suggesting that this father may have engaged in nepotism once before, which makes me question his integrity. Not every father does that, so it's more relevant than just "of course, it's the dad".

I phrased it cautiously because I don't know the full story, but the pieces are there and I think it's worth pointing them out.

I think people are also reacting to presumption that [hiring ones son[ is a [negative] mark on integrity or honestly. Many (most?) people don't draw that as a logical conclusion.

What does `this` refer to in your comment? If "hiring his son," I don't think anybody is indicating that it is a mark of integrity or honesty.

Thanks, I edited to clear that up. Yes, I meant hiring his son. I think loliander was explicitly claiming that it impacts their honesty and credibility.

>I'm suggesting that this father may have engaged in nepotism once before, which makes me question his integrity.

Oh, then I misunderstood that too, yes. I read "mark of integrity" as being a strictly positive thing. Your edit looks good though.

Helping your own son in life is not nepotism, nor does it indicate a possible lack of integrity.

It's absolutely a mistake and a lack of critical thinking to believe that any given father would go out of his way and put his own reputation at risk for his son. Some would. I don't know if it's even a majority. But plenty of fathers would not, even if they're present in their son's life.

Edited for clarity.

Not in western culture.

Sure, there are no absolutes, but as a rule you can count on parents being partial to their children. It’s definitely a majority — not even close.

I didn't downvote you, but only because I can't downvote.

This comment is so out of touch with human family norms and morals that I do think it detracts from the overall discussion.

Totally fine to say "uh guys, it's the kid's dad, not exactly an unbiased party", but to suggest that a father using his resources to raise his son is an indication of a lack of integrity shows that you have a poor or distorted grasp on how the human world works (and should work).

> a favor and explain why you disagree

Unrealistic request. 95% of the point of downvoting is to give people the option to do their bit to bury things that they can't logically refute or easily debunk or whatever. The other 5% is spam/troll mitigation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com