2 ms·
Because this is Microsoft we shall apply Gates' razor and must thus conclude that "never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by malice".
by yason 2y ago
Because this is Microsoft we shall apply Gates' razor and must thus conclude that "never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by malice".
- lifestyleguru 2y ago> Gates' razor and must thus conclude that "never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by malice I like this term, hopefully it enters dictionary. Stupidity doesn't buy yachts, vile malice does.
- donatj 2y agoI believe you mean Hanlon's Razor?
- gryfft 2y agoThey've inverted it ironically to attribute malice to Microsoft. (Not undeservedly.)
- munch117 2y agoPlease refrain from content-free meming on HN.
- rrr_oh_man 2y agoCan you elaborate why you would see Gates as a malicious actor?
- klabb3 2y agoMonopolistic actions are malicious, if you believe in free markets. Gates led the war against Netscape, for one. The setback to the industry and consumers was massive. Anti-market behavior is today completely normalized, so Gates is very much not alone. Malice is not an unusual phenomenon.
- quesera 2y agoThis is a difficult question to answer without knowing whether your Bill Gates context includes his years at Microsoft, or only as a philanthropist with sketchy friends. If the former, you'll need to present an argument that Microsoft did not hold back the entire industry for 20 years with low quality products, severe user-hostility, and monopolistic practices. If the latter, you should read up about the 1980s and 1990s and early 2000s.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- philipov 2y agoWhat you're thinking of is called Grey's Law: "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from Malice"
- lifestyleguru 2y ago> Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from Malice" OP didn't mistake anything, this would be a public office clerk and they don't have private jets nor yachts.