Hacker News Reader

Comment by humanarity | Hacker News Reader

I'd say there's something even more important operating here for you than career, and that's who do you choose to be? This is really a question it works for you to answer yourself. Consult your own values, search your feelings, is this something that really inspires you? Are you being you authentically if you do testify or not? Whatever you discover, take the risk and act on that, whichever it is. The choice that is you, even if it's risky. This is an identity inflexion point. Get your game face on :)

View on HN

crypt1d's response on this level is invisible for being flagged, but I think he does raise a serious point: wouldn't OP be admitting that he has broken the law or allowed the law to be broken for a longer period of time? What would be the consequences for him because of that?

Sure that's possible, however, four things: 1) There's not nearly enough information to determine that from the post, 2) the post actually says evidence was collected, which may suggest the person was caretaking justice, 3) in any case, that would be legal advice, which, however constructive, the person has plenty of and 4) if you believe this, and you don't do anything to report that, does that make you culpable of the very thing you're wondering someone else did?

It's interesting to consider, and I don't know. I'm not a legal professional tho I imagine a legal professional would say "there's not enough information."

So on those points alone I feel it's far more likely what you suggest is incorrect. Also I'm inclined to believe that. One reason is it works to choose the benefit of the doubt (not only because it's a legal doctrine), one reason for that being the benefit of the doubt creates harmony amongst people. Search for the good, sometimes it takes effort, and it's worth it. You'll be happier, definitely, if you see the good. On that point, I'd say we're wired to imaginatively perceive the bad, because we're wired for "threat landscape analysis". Tho this disturbs the mind, and maybe isn't always a clarity that works for people. Seeing the good is more unnatural and yet I think also very valuable.

Finally, if a person is asking strangers for advice at a pivotal moment, I'd say they're valuing and respecting others. It also works to respect their vulnerability in reaching out and help. I mean, that's the putative spirit of "Ask HN", right?

Maybe I'm missing something here, and benefit of the doubt goes a long way it seems to me. I'm also finding the HN Guideline, "Don't say anything you wouldn't say to someone's face" really useful in guiding choice on what to say here! :)

It's a civil suit, not a criminal suit, and he's not the one being sued. I think only company officers may be personally sued for company behavior.

Great point. I'm no law expert tho I've heard there's different types of companies ( Delaware c ? ), as a matter of curiosity I wonder if the indemnification changes depending on the type of company.

Beautiful.

I say don't do it if it is not your business, if what the person did did not intentionally physically, financially, emotionally destroy anyone.

If you do it, who would you be helping?

There is something I love about the law, a concept named balance of hardship. If the testimony will do damage to this person, while on the other hand only inflicting slight inconveniences for the business, than again don't do it.

EDIT: Now if the person knew the consequences and intentionally wanted to harm, then I guess they knew what they were getting into.

This is the only answer to his question :)

Or hers :)

Except it doesn't answer the actual question...

and yet somehow it does, which seems to be why it works :)

I agree. The OP is clearly asking for quantifiable responses about career impact and not platitudes.

I also thought so, and then I heard the real question

I agree with the sentiment but the issue I take with the original answer is that it is that it's completely unactionable. There's no litmus test defined for what "authenticity" to oneself is or how to achieve it, so there's no way for the OP to really take this information and tangibly apply it to their situation. In my personal opinion suggestion without actionability is not particularly useful and only convolutes the decision making process.

Porpoise hi :) thanks for the chance to expand on this, I really appreciate that today :) I agree with your point, and it's a goodun: how can you action authenticity if you don't know what it is? and if so it only makes the process inefficient. Totally agree. It's a mess not knowing where you stand, which is precisely the point. It works when we choose from who we are. There is a way to be authentic - I guess we know it without realizing it. You answered what seemed right for you, and that was being authentic. Sometimes a strong conviction is what's needed for a decision, and that's something being sought here. A reliable guide each of us has for our own authenticity is our own values and our own feelings. Without these invaluable guides we're like travellers without a compass, so it works to cultivate them and deploy them much as we can. It's a process and it gets easier. Follow your heart and eventually you'll find what your values are and be able to say them to people. They're our most valuable guides, and they're ours. :)

Of course it's actionable. Just because an algorithm can't do a cost/benefit analysis and come up with a deterministic solution absolving OP of all responsibility doesn't mean it's not actionable. The solution does however dodge the question as stated. OP asked what the consequences are of testifying, so he can decide whether doing the right thing is worth the risk/consequences. The solution suggested is telling him to say damn the consequences, do what you know is right, whatever that may be. It's life advice, not factual information. It doesn't answer the question he was asking explicitly, it answers the implicit follow up question; once I know the consequences, what do I do?

You sound like a good listener, do you really think the real question is about the risks or is it about personal guidance? Hard to say, right? My feeling is personal guidance, because it just seems so overwhelmingly obvious to me the question is not about what it's stated about. That's just the packaging. Unwrap it -- real q inside! :)

I'd argue that those are simply two separate questions that both pertain to this particular situation.

And you'd have no argument from me there ! :) How would you consider each were you in this situation?

It would depend very heavily on the nature of the charges.

In general, however, I don't think that I would want to work for a company that would hold a bias against me due to my participating in presumably honest testimony when a previous employer was brought to court for whatever reason.

Got it, cool. :)

Since when is having a moral compass a platitude?

It's like the generic advise that everyone already knows. "be yourself!" isn't super helpful when he/she is asking specifically about career impact.

Know who you are then you'll know what to do. The question isn't about career impact. That's just like when someone's words are different to their body language. The question is different to the words in it.

Whether or not he feels that testifying would be the right thing to do isn't about career impact.

Looking for advice about what testifying could do to his career image in the long-term from a crowd that likely has relevant experience is about career impact. Explicitly.

Yes, you've correctly comprehended the literal explicit question, that's all there is to it, isn't it?

Except it really isn't about the explicit literal question, it's about the unasked real question.

What happens when you don't know you don't know something, or when asking what would be unacceptable?

A proxy question is substituted, and you hope someone hears what you're really saying.

Also, from a literal sense, I'd say whether you feel the choice is authentic is actually all about career impact. You're choosing to make your career something which isn't you, or something which is. What is the impact on you, and subsequently on your career, for each choice?

Thanks for saying that you're right and that my answer isn't addressing the question. I invite you to create an answer that addresses the question you see, so we can learn from you! :)

That's a very compact rebuttal! I hope I can one day express myself so efficiently. Impressive.

There was a time when I didn't know how useful "being yourself" was. I don't believe I'm the only one. For instance, people substitute defining themselves by a contrarian viewpoint relative to others, until they work out who they really are. Case in point: the petulant teenager.

And when you don't know you don't know, the questions you ask and actions you take don't display an understanding of that -- so it works to address the non literal if you want to contribute to helping people with those requests.

I hope this helps ! :)

> That's a very compact rebuttal! I hope I can one day express myself so efficiently. Impressive.

Just in case I'm misreading you, this post comes across as quite passive-aggressive and patronizing given your opening line.

No I don't think you're misreading. Maybe you're right and it is patronising and passive aggressive. I'm struggling with a response to this, and I meant every word. The rebuttal is very compact and I admire that. I'm often too verbose, and value clarity.

Anyway I'm trying to say something like:

Not everyone may know that. Being yourself is important, all decisions flow from your values works. Sometimes it works to address the substantive content of a question which may differ from the literal.

If you have any ideas how I can say this in a way that works, thank you :)

Thanks for sharing that my answer doesn't contribute a thing for you! I invite you to create your own answer which does, so we can learn from you :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com