Sorry, but no. He is not just a random guy off the street, he is in a responsible public position, and this is already his defense, so it is reasonable to think

Sorry, but no. He is not just a random guy off the street, he is in a responsible public position, and this is already his defense, so it is reasonable to think that this is the best he could come up with to defend his decision, it's not some misinterpreted tweet that was taken out of context. Also, I have not seen anyone advocating for hurting him, which would obviously be out of place, but you can not take on the responsibility for a public good worth billions and then expect exceedingly friendly treatment when you completely fuck it up because you didn't care to exercise even a minimal amount of diligence, in the best case. And while "idiot" or "fool" might not be neutral terms, they are still terms that at their core describe his actions in this case (assuming it wasn't corruption), it's not just random name calling to degrade a person. Now, if there really is an explanation how all of this is in the public interest, sure, bring it forward, and push it to the front page of HN, I certainly would want to know. But the mere fact that even the best-founded judgement could always turn out to be completely wrong after all based on new evidence is not a reason to hold back criticism when there is solid evidence supporting that criticism, because the theoretical possibility does not mean it is actually likely or common.