3 ms·
I know this is probably in jest, but I think Hanlon's razor applies here > "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence."
by fnord77 7y ago
I know this is probably in jest, but I think Hanlon's razor applies here
> "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence."
- onlyrealcuzzo 7y agoI'm guessing the risk was asymetric for SoftBank vs KSA. SoftBank probably made a ton of money guaranteed by the deals, plus the chance to make a ton more if they worked out. KSA only makes money if it works out, and it's not. KSA loses, SoftBank still won.
- Chris_Chambers 7y agoNever attribute to Hanlon’s razor that which can adequately be explained by anyone with a sufficiently high IQ to fully comprehend all the nuances of a situation. Everyone who ever cites Hanlon’s razor is just admitting they’re too stupid to see the bigger picture.
- vsareto 7y agoIncompetence apparently pays pretty well
- daenz 7y agoHanlon's razor is forever at odds with plausible deniability.
- pvarangot 7y agoThere is of course a middle point here... "oh, I don't like this guy and he's incompetent enough so that I can be a little evil to him without risking any consecuence".
- catalogia 7y agoWidespread belief in Hanlon's razor is very useful to anybody looking to get away with something.