this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2025
58 points (100.0% liked)
Hacker News
3201 readers
694 users here now
Posts from the RSS Feed of HackerNews.
The feed sometimes contains ads and posts that have been removed by the mod team at HN.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The problem is the charity is buying from the charity founder's farm. That's a huge conflict of interest.
Also, I think of all things charity, lying wreaths on graves is a pretty damn inefficient use of resources.
but it makes us feel all warm and fuzzy about their sacrifices and less likely to challenge leadership when the next "war on whatever" happens.
The article indicates that the bid process for the wreaths is open to other vendors and administered by a third party. Yes the relationship is a red flag but the article says that they make all required disclosures and there aren't any indications that they're doing anything illegal or unethical. The guy founded the charity, it looks like he believes in the cause and is willing to provide the wreaths for the lowest price.
As to your second point, I accept that you don't value the charity's cause. I don't either, I don't see dead bodies as having value beyond their usefulness for medical donation and research. I say harvest what's useful and compost the rest. We're in the minority though. Culturally, and emotionally for many families, graves have value and caring for graves is a way to remember the deceased individual. It's what the charity was founded to do and, according to the article, is the primary source of the charity's income. Having different values and priorities from the charity isn't really applicable to what's presented in the article.