4 ms·
I can't see why Occam's razor wouldn't apply: don't postulate more entities than are necessary to explain the facts. Specifically, there is no reason to postula
by samhw 4y ago
I can't see why Occam's razor wouldn't apply: don't postulate more entities than are necessary to explain the facts. Specifically, there is no reason to postulate some kind of anti-Firefox elements within Cloudflare when it's simply explainable as a mistake.
(There's a reason Hanlon's razor was given that name, I'm pretty sure, and that's because it's not too dissimilar from – essentially it's a much-more-situation-specific subset or variant of – Occam's razor. But I don't think "attribute to stupidity" was what the parent comment was suggesting.)
- mynameisvlad 4y ago^ This. The simplest explanation is generally the most correct.
- samhw 4y agoI think that definition is right, but only where 'simplest' factors in the probability of each premiss, not just the aggregate number of premisses. And yeah, on that reading it's trivially true, but something's being trivially true doesn't mean humans as psychological beings don't need reminding of it.
- account42 4y agoIt doesn't matter which razor you want to apply. These guidelines work well for natural/random phenomena but if you are talking about a potentially malicious group of sentient actors you have to assume that they will abuse your willingness to brush off ambigious acts as benign. For an organization that controls as large as a percentage of web traffic as Cloudflare I don't think we should be giving them the benefit of the doubt. Even if this is a customer rule, Cloudflare are still the ones making it easy and cheap to implement such rules.