4 ms·

> I think there's a good chance this was just plain old incompetence, not malice. The meme of Hanlon's Razor needs to die. Incompetence from a position of powe

by kibwen 1y ago

> I think there's a good chance this was just plain old incompetence, not malice. The meme of Hanlon's Razor needs to die. Incompetence from a position of power is malice, period.

sorokod 1y ago
As a codendeced variant, yes. A bit more nuanced version is that incompetence from a position of power is a choice.
- Ajedi32 1y ago
  That seems contrary to my experience. Large, powerful bureaucracies are often highly incompetent in ways that clearly work against their own interests. If it were merely a choice they wouldn't choose to be incompetent in those ways. I guess you could go even more nuanced and say sometimes incompetence from a position of power is a choice, and I would agree with that, but now the statement seems so watered down as to be almost meaningless.
  - mdhb 1y ago
    I feel like this is getting far too abstract to the point that you’re actively losing sight of a very real, very concrete and very specific set of actions they took which don’t appear to have any credible and innocent motives but also happen to perfectly align with why by all reasonable definitions would be considered malicious.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - danaris 1y ago
    Large companies in the US, especially at the current moment in history, have huge amounts of power vested in individual executives. If those executives valued not being incompetent in any specific given way (especially in the ways that harm the many), they have the power to change that. They can say "no, we need to make sure this never happens again." The fact that they choose not to do that, in so, so many cases, has a variety of causes, but in the end what it fundamentally boils down to is that they choose not to do it.
  - throwanem 1y ago
    We were talking about people, not bureaucracies. You've already argued "they were just following orders" on behalf of those who implement. Do you mean now also to excuse those who originate? Or do you really think anyone is going to believe, in 2025, that there is nowhere the buck stops?
  - sorokod 1y ago
    "clearly work against their own interests" Perhaps, but perhaps there is a bigger set of constraints not visible to an outsider which the "buerocrats" are trying to satisfy.
    - account42 1y ago
      It is also a question about whose interests we are talking about. Interests of individual decision makers can be contrary to the company as a whole.
  - account42 1y ago
    The point is not to come up with a simple rule that is going to give you the correct answer in every case but to come up with a simple rule that is going to give you the best outcome overall. You need to think about it in game theory terms: For friends they are unlikely going to be randomly malicious while assuming malice for every mistake is quickly going to ruin your friendship. So Hanlon's razor makes sense. Corporations on the other hand cannot be assumed to have morals or care about you. You are already fungible to them so assuming malice until proven otherwise is not going to make things worse for you. Meanwhile giving corporations the benefit of the doubt allows the truly malicious ones to take advantage of that who, unlike your friends, don't really have any other feedback loops that keep them honest.
ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
This doesn't acknowledge reality. Tesla has a position of power, but that doesn't mean Tesla is free from incompetence or can ever be free from it.
- danaris 1y ago
  But Tesla has sufficient power that they do not have the luxury of pleading incompetence when things like this happen. This is both because such incompetence costs people's lives, and because they have enough money that they could definitely hire more or better people to re-check and add redundant safety features into their products. The problem is, they do not want any accountability for claiming that their cars are "self-driving", or for any of their other errors or willful endangerment of the public.
- stouset 1y ago
  Trillion-dollar companies run by egomaniacal billionaires do not need you rushing to your keyboard to make excuses for them. A corporation can hire people and put processes in place to arbitrarily minimize (or not) the chance of an mistake in areas that matter to them. In this case, they did just that; only the thing being optimized for was “not giving data to the authorities”. The evidence of this trial does not support an “oopsie poopsie we messed up so sowwy” interpretation of events. Tesla’s paid representatives went out of their way—repeatedly—to lie, mislead, and withhold evidence in order to avoid scrutiny. Fuck them and everyone involved with that.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
    This comment says more about your relationship with the world than it does about the subject matter
    - tstrimple 1y ago
      Comments like yours are why we're on the slide into fascism with little fanfare. Oops! We accidentally committed treason. No reason to hold us responsible for our actions!
cnst 1y ago
I don't have an excuse why their lawyer did the lawyery stuff, but as far as unlinking of the file being done in software, "destroying evidence", I think the explanation is far more benign. If you're big on privacy, things like logging incorrect password attempts is a big no-no. We have to "thank" the privacy advocates for that. How do you think the owner of the car would feel if the file was visible in plain sight to the next owner of the vehicle?
tstrimple 1y ago
Integrity is for suckers. The system rewards those who play by its rules.

by kibwen 1y ago

> I think there's a good chance this was just plain old incompetence, not malice. The meme of Hanlon's Razor needs to die. Incompetence from a position of power is malice, period.

sorokod 1y ago

As a codendeced variant, yes. A bit more nuanced version is that incompetence from a position of power is a choice.

Ajedi32 1y ago
That seems contrary to my experience. Large, powerful bureaucracies are often highly incompetent in ways that clearly work against their own interests. If it were merely a choice they wouldn't choose to be incompetent in those ways. I guess you could go even more nuanced and say sometimes incompetence from a position of power is a choice, and I would agree with that, but now the statement seems so watered down as to be almost meaningless.
- mdhb 1y ago
  I feel like this is getting far too abstract to the point that you’re actively losing sight of a very real, very concrete and very specific set of actions they took which don’t appear to have any credible and innocent motives but also happen to perfectly align with why by all reasonable definitions would be considered malicious.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- danaris 1y ago
  Large companies in the US, especially at the current moment in history, have huge amounts of power vested in individual executives. If those executives valued not being incompetent in any specific given way (especially in the ways that harm the many), they have the power to change that. They can say "no, we need to make sure this never happens again." The fact that they choose not to do that, in so, so many cases, has a variety of causes, but in the end what it fundamentally boils down to is that they choose not to do it.
- throwanem 1y ago
  We were talking about people, not bureaucracies. You've already argued "they were just following orders" on behalf of those who implement. Do you mean now also to excuse those who originate? Or do you really think anyone is going to believe, in 2025, that there is nowhere the buck stops?
- sorokod 1y ago
  "clearly work against their own interests" Perhaps, but perhaps there is a bigger set of constraints not visible to an outsider which the "buerocrats" are trying to satisfy.
  - account42 1y ago
    It is also a question about whose interests we are talking about. Interests of individual decision makers can be contrary to the company as a whole.
- account42 1y ago
  The point is not to come up with a simple rule that is going to give you the correct answer in every case but to come up with a simple rule that is going to give you the best outcome overall. You need to think about it in game theory terms: For friends they are unlikely going to be randomly malicious while assuming malice for every mistake is quickly going to ruin your friendship. So Hanlon's razor makes sense. Corporations on the other hand cannot be assumed to have morals or care about you. You are already fungible to them so assuming malice until proven otherwise is not going to make things worse for you. Meanwhile giving corporations the benefit of the doubt allows the truly malicious ones to take advantage of that who, unlike your friends, don't really have any other feedback loops that keep them honest.

ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago

This doesn't acknowledge reality. Tesla has a position of power, but that doesn't mean Tesla is free from incompetence or can ever be free from it.

danaris 1y ago
But Tesla has sufficient power that they do not have the luxury of pleading incompetence when things like this happen. This is both because such incompetence costs people's lives, and because they have enough money that they could definitely hire more or better people to re-check and add redundant safety features into their products. The problem is, they do not want any accountability for claiming that their cars are "self-driving", or for any of their other errors or willful endangerment of the public.
stouset 1y ago
Trillion-dollar companies run by egomaniacal billionaires do not need you rushing to your keyboard to make excuses for them. A corporation can hire people and put processes in place to arbitrarily minimize (or not) the chance of an mistake in areas that matter to them. In this case, they did just that; only the thing being optimized for was “not giving data to the authorities”. The evidence of this trial does not support an “oopsie poopsie we messed up so sowwy” interpretation of events. Tesla’s paid representatives went out of their way—repeatedly—to lie, mislead, and withhold evidence in order to avoid scrutiny. Fuck them and everyone involved with that.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
  This comment says more about your relationship with the world than it does about the subject matter
  - tstrimple 1y ago
    Comments like yours are why we're on the slide into fascism with little fanfare. Oops! We accidentally committed treason. No reason to hold us responsible for our actions!

cnst 1y ago

I don't have an excuse why their lawyer did the lawyery stuff, but as far as unlinking of the file being done in software, "destroying evidence", I think the explanation is far more benign. If you're big on privacy, things like logging incorrect password attempts is a big no-no. We have to "thank" the privacy advocates for that. How do you think the owner of the car would feel if the file was visible in plain sight to the next owner of the vehicle?

tstrimple 1y ago

Integrity is for suckers. The system rewards those who play by its rules.