6 ms·

Always wise to remember Hanlon's razor: "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence" Occam's razor also applies here.

jwie 3y ago
There are two aspects to that saying. The word adequately, and the fact it was made when presuming good faith was more reasonable. These days it's better to assume everything is theft, fraud, or marketing.
gjsman-1000 3y ago
I'm sorry, I didn't maliciously stab the guy, I was just really, really, really incompetent with handling this axe.
- ec109685 3y ago
  It doesn't apply in all situations, clearly.
- denton-scratch 3y ago
  I'd have thought stabbing someone with an axe would require extreme competence.
JohnFen 3y ago
I think Hanlon's razor isn't true often enough to consider it a valid rule of thumb. But, really, does it matter whether the bad thing is caused by incompetence or malice outside of a court of law? The bad thing happens either way.
hypeit 3y ago
Let's please not pretend like philosophical razors are anything other than rhetorical devices. There's exactly zero data to back any of them up and it wouldn't matter if there was since each case is unique. There is however research (that aligns with a lot of people's experience) to suggest psychopaths and sociopaths are very over represented in leadership: https://www.sakkyndig.com/psykologi/artvit/babiak2010.pdf https://www.sakkyndig.com/psykologi/artvit/babiak2010.pdf
- ec109685 3y ago
  I think as a rhetorical device it's good. Which is more likely: 1) Company has actively decided to burn all good will by being evil (we will use your private meeting content to train our ai without any way to opt out) 2) Company is dumb in their terms of service The HN commenters tend to assume #1 when it comes to big companies, while more likely it's #2. The razors capture this situation well.
function_seven 3y ago
I'm done with Hanlon and his Razor. It's useless. I now use Hanlon's Shaving Brush. Its a broad brush that I use to paint every sketchy move businesses make. "Is it malice? Or is it incompetence that merely looks like malice?". I don't care! I'll assume malice unless otherwise shown. It's not my job to try and find out how evil shit was done accidentally. It doesn't matter if they "oopsied" into selling a firehose of my data to a "trusted partner" to analyze to death. Nobody actually gives a shit at these companies, so I need to treat them all as if they're malicious. If the underlying cause was a bit of incompetence a few years ago, that does nothing for me when I'm discovering the fuckery.
rangerelf 3y ago
Way over quoted, and it didn't represent the incentives companies have to screw over their own customers in the pursuit of profits. Maybe it's both: malice to kick off the effort and incompetence because they got found out.
checkyoursudo 3y ago
Never ascribe to a hasty overgeneralisation that which is adequately explainable by observation and evidence. I think attributing everything to incompetence vastly underrepresents intent. Maybe not all bad acts are malice, but too many are attributed to incompetence. Maybe it is not malice, but it can still be intentional actions against or indifferent to your interests.

jwie 3y ago

There are two aspects to that saying. The word adequately, and the fact it was made when presuming good faith was more reasonable. These days it's better to assume everything is theft, fraud, or marketing.

gjsman-1000 3y ago

I'm sorry, I didn't maliciously stab the guy, I was just really, really, really incompetent with handling this axe.

ec109685 3y ago
It doesn't apply in all situations, clearly.
denton-scratch 3y ago
I'd have thought stabbing someone with an axe would require extreme competence.

JohnFen 3y ago

I think Hanlon's razor isn't true often enough to consider it a valid rule of thumb. But, really, does it matter whether the bad thing is caused by incompetence or malice outside of a court of law? The bad thing happens either way.

hypeit 3y ago

Let's please not pretend like philosophical razors are anything other than rhetorical devices. There's exactly zero data to back any of them up and it wouldn't matter if there was since each case is unique. There is however research (that aligns with a lot of people's experience) to suggest psychopaths and sociopaths are very over represented in leadership: https://www.sakkyndig.com/psykologi/artvit/babiak2010.pdf https://www.sakkyndig.com/psykologi/artvit/babiak2010.pdf

ec109685 3y ago
I think as a rhetorical device it's good. Which is more likely: 1) Company has actively decided to burn all good will by being evil (we will use your private meeting content to train our ai without any way to opt out) 2) Company is dumb in their terms of service The HN commenters tend to assume #1 when it comes to big companies, while more likely it's #2. The razors capture this situation well.

function_seven 3y ago

I'm done with Hanlon and his Razor. It's useless. I now use Hanlon's Shaving Brush. Its a broad brush that I use to paint every sketchy move businesses make. "Is it malice? Or is it incompetence that merely looks like malice?". I don't care! I'll assume malice unless otherwise shown. It's not my job to try and find out how evil shit was done accidentally. It doesn't matter if they "oopsied" into selling a firehose of my data to a "trusted partner" to analyze to death. Nobody actually gives a shit at these companies, so I need to treat them all as if they're malicious. If the underlying cause was a bit of incompetence a few years ago, that does nothing for me when I'm discovering the fuckery.

rangerelf 3y ago

Way over quoted, and it didn't represent the incentives companies have to screw over their own customers in the pursuit of profits. Maybe it's both: malice to kick off the effort and incompetence because they got found out.

checkyoursudo 3y ago

Never ascribe to a hasty overgeneralisation that which is adequately explainable by observation and evidence. I think attributing everything to incompetence vastly underrepresents intent. Maybe not all bad acts are malice, but too many are attributed to incompetence. Maybe it is not malice, but it can still be intentional actions against or indifferent to your interests.