[StevenWaterman]

There's a difference between

    (is kin) -> (preferred for job)

and

    (is kin) -> (insider knowledge that they're better than expected) -> (preferred for job)

Specifically,

    (insider knowledge that they're better than expected) -> (preferred for job)

would make complete sense and would not be looked down upon. The source of that knowledge is problematic on a societal scale, but not on an individual level.

[quickthrower2]

Still nepotism.

Person A and B are equally great for the role but cannot do a triple summersault to land on a beam, so neither can get past the interview stage

But… A’s uncle who went to Harvard with a high-up says “that boy is good” so they hire him on that. B posts on HN about getting no feedback and submitting their CV to 100 firms.

Nepotism has happened.

Later A may/may not succeed, turns out he does in this N=1 case.

[hgomersall]

This debate about definition is sort of irrelevant to the broader question. Should knowledge that someone is good be ignored if the knowledge was gained through prior personal knowledge of a candidate? Even if that was possible, it would seem to me an absurd a route to take. Surely the better question is how those without prior connections can be allowed to sufficiently demonstrate their competence.

[mikrl]

(is some race) -> (won’t fit in on team) -> (don’t hire)

Is transitive racism okay in your worldview?