10 ms·

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

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 :)

bstrom 12y ago
This is the only answer to his question :)
- BurningFrog 12y ago
  Except it doesn't answer the actual question...
  - humanarity 12y ago
    and yet somehow it does, which seems to be why it works :)
  - porpoisemonkey 12y ago
    I agree. The OP is clearly asking for quantifiable responses about career impact and not platitudes.
    - humanarity 12y ago
      I also thought so, and then I heard the real question
      - porpoisemonkey 12y ago
        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.
        humanarity 12y ago
        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. :)
        wfo 12y ago
        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?
        humanarity 12y ago
        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! :)
        12y ago
    - oskarth 12y ago
      Since when is having a moral compass a platitude?
      - hueving 12y ago
        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.
        humanarity 12y ago
        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.
        kaens 12y ago
        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.
        humanarity 12y ago
        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! :)
- humanarity 12y ago
  Or hers :)
crypt1d 12y ago
Sorry to point this out, but the fact that he did nothing to prevent the law abuse while he was an employee there speaks volumes about his moral compass.
- emef 12y ago
  That's rather presumptuous, do you happen to know more than what's in the post?
- cle 12y ago
  What? It says nothing about his moral compass, because none of us know the details of what went on. Unless you would like to fill us in?
- humanarity 12y ago
  It works to give the benefit of the doubt and make a helpful contribution. For instance: my helpful contribution to you is did you notice the person said they had evidence? Maybe they'd been safeguarding some evidence, perhaps at some risk, to ensure justice. Maybe even more. We don't know they "did nothing" so assuming that may be incorrect. :)
rokhayakebe 12y ago
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.
Confusion 12y ago
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?
- humanarity 12y ago
  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! :)
- pron 12y ago
  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.

bstrom 12y ago

This is the only answer to his question :)

BurningFrog 12y ago
Except it doesn't answer the actual question...
- humanarity 12y ago
  and yet somehow it does, which seems to be why it works :)
- porpoisemonkey 12y ago
  I agree. The OP is clearly asking for quantifiable responses about career impact and not platitudes.
  - humanarity 12y ago
    I also thought so, and then I heard the real question
    - porpoisemonkey 12y ago
      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.
      - humanarity 12y ago
        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. :)
      - wfo 12y ago
        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?
        humanarity 12y ago
        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! :)
        12y ago
  - oskarth 12y ago
    Since when is having a moral compass a platitude?
    - hueving 12y ago
      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.
      - humanarity 12y ago
        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.
        kaens 12y ago
        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.
        humanarity 12y ago
        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! :)
humanarity 12y ago
Or hers :)

crypt1d 12y ago

Sorry to point this out, but the fact that he did nothing to prevent the law abuse while he was an employee there speaks volumes about his moral compass.

emef 12y ago
That's rather presumptuous, do you happen to know more than what's in the post?
cle 12y ago
What? It says nothing about his moral compass, because none of us know the details of what went on. Unless you would like to fill us in?
humanarity 12y ago
It works to give the benefit of the doubt and make a helpful contribution. For instance: my helpful contribution to you is did you notice the person said they had evidence? Maybe they'd been safeguarding some evidence, perhaps at some risk, to ensure justice. Maybe even more. We don't know they "did nothing" so assuming that may be incorrect. :)

rokhayakebe 12y ago

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.

Confusion 12y ago

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?

humanarity 12y ago
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! :)
pron 12y ago
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.