zlacker

Reasoning based on cui bono is a hallmark of conspiracy theories.

>>jhh+(OP)
The alternative is "these guys don't know what they're doing, even if tens of billions of dollars are at stake".

Which is to say, what's your alternative for a better explanation? (other than the "cui bono?" one, that is).

>>jhh+(OP)
Haha yes, we should never look at the incentives behind actions. We all know human decision making is stochastic right?

>>jhh+(OP)
Haha yeah the world is just run by silly fools who make silly mistakes (oops, just drafted a law limited your right to protest - oopsie!) and just random/lucky investments.

>>jhh+(OP)
Possibility is also a hallmark of conspiracy theories, yet we don't reject theories for being possible.

This is an argumentum ad odium fallacy

>>pagane+y2
Your alternative explanation along with giant egos is pretty plausible.

>>pagane+y2
> these guys don't know what they're doing, even if tens of billions of dollars are at stake

also known as "never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence", which to my gut sounds at least as likely as a cui bono explanation tbh (which is not to be seen as an endorsement of the view that cui bono = conspiracy...)

>>airstr+R6
Everyone always forgets there's two parts to Hanlon's razor:

> Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity (1), but don't rule out malice. (2)

>>financ+qi
I don't actually think (2) is part of the razor[1]. If it is, then it doesn't make sense because (1) is an absolute (i.e. "never") which is always evaluated boolean "true", therefore statement (2) is never actually executed and is dead code.

Nevertheless I agree with you and think (2) is wise to always keep in mind. I love Hanlon's Razor but people definitely should take it literally as written and/or as law.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor