I know D Sivers visits HN and we can be civil and polite about analyzing his text separately from his intentions. If you read some of the other HN replies in this thread, DS's wording has clearly rubbed some (not all) the wrong way. Imo, here are some example sentences that some readers may not like:
>Other families come to the playground for twenty or thirty minutes, but we stay there for hours.
>Nobody else can play with us like this. Everyone else gets so bored.
Regardless of DS's charities and wholesome intentions, that type of text above will always be percieved by some as humblebrag and condescension toward other parents. Some will roll their eyes and think of the Willy Wonka meme: https://www.google.com/search?q=condescending+wonka&source=l...
For a subset of irritated readers, it's DS written text that seems to have the "holier-than-thou" vibe.
That said, most of DS blog posts have that similar tone so some readers will always smile and nod along while others will find it a turnoff. One can't please everyone.
Better than most who make millions, not than general population. Who knows, maybe the millionaires are "worse" than the average in this regard.
That is a very common tax shelter rich people use to avoid paying capital gains tax, called a CRUT. It hardly makes him a saint.
Raising a child looks like it's a game of, "How few orders of consequences can I reach before I see how my child's behavior is my responsibility?" to some parents.
Some parents take this to a negative place by blaming themselves for their kids negative traits, especially so if their kid is dominated by those traits. Other parents claim credit for the wonderful things about their kid, again especially so when the kid is defined by those positive traits.
It takes a wholly different kind of parent to be proud of how they're effecting their kid before they even know how the kid ends up turning out, setting aside the reality that parents are only one part of the vast swirl of influence a child experiences.
The pushback to this article might come from Sivers pre-supposing his kid is better off for having his father treat him as he does.
Sivers legally forced himself to give nearly the entire value of his company (~$22,000,000 - (5% per year of living)) that he had worked years to build to charity, and that can be verified pretty easily.
It's safe to say he's a better person than most, and this article isn't really advice in the sense you seem to be implying. Using a holier-than-thou tone probably doesn't help your case, very much.