The article does shoot some shots at "Richy Rich" characters, but I think it's mainly to convince/uplift the reader to stop comparing their own success with other people's success if their upbringings never made it a fair comparison in the first place.

Your worldly achievements and accomplishments in code should not be compared to a version of you who indeed had a secret pile of cash or someone funding them and never had to sacrifice things for their art, who might have achieved more worldly things.

I see the valid point you make about how civilization should strive to be above cruel, black/white judgement and ideally encourage empathy towards others in order to be considered just. But I also can't argue against an average citizen not having enough empathy/attention to give (from the limited pool we all have) to one of the biggest and most infamous con artists of our time. It's not like she's in there for just doing drugs.

Law should not be one's entire moral compass, but the things she did are undeniably extreme.

It's one thing to trivialize asian abuse situations with what-abouts. It's another to make a bold statement that trivializes everything else.

I think your observation is phrased in a way that implies the father has done something entirely selfless and the daughter has done something relatively selfish.

The reply from the daughter was an attempt to set a clear boundary while also showing appreciation and support for his change. I think setting boundaries like this is a perfectly healthy thing to do, including/especially towards family members.

I disagree that my comment was phrased to imply anything; I made a conscious effort for it to be as objective as possible.

I'm completely fine for my comment to prompt people's own takes, as you gave in your second paragraph, in response to my observation.