Because that alternative, that we should simply "hope", or the idea that such should be valued at all irrespective of purely judging such on outcomes, is itself

Because that alternative, that we should simply "hope", or the idea that such should be valued at all irrespective of purely judging such on outcomes, is itself a symptom of a fundamentally sick system overwhelmed with feel good press releases and cynical marketing PR bullshit. I don't generally go around saying: well at least I can "hope" that when I eat this burger it will give me sustenance rather than poisoning and killing me, because the later has a miniscule chance of happening relative to our everyday experience. Indeed, what a sad and desperate situation we would have to be in to say: "eat the burger, and just hope it doesn't kill you". So indeed, needing to "hope" , or pointing out that we should "hope" wouldn't be a good thing. It is itself a symptom of a system whereby the necessity of suggesting that we should hope about a bullshit PR release in fact reveals that what we're talking about is prima facie a bullshit PR release, or at least must be assumed to be given our common experience. Perhaps it is only right that we should not expect or place value on people "hoping", but suggest that we give praise to people, Mr Z or otherwise, when they actually do something, not when they put out a sappy marketing piece about "we're totally gonna do something 'cause luv". Facebook already puts out motherhood statements regarding say, internet access to poor people, that myself and others pretty much deem thinly veiled self-serving bullshit. So if anything, we should be grateful that not everyone is taken in by PR, and just say that if there is any basis to Mr. Z's philanthropic claims, then extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and when it is forthcoming, he will be given credit.