Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by rosmax_1337 1097 days ago
>I don't really attribute this maliciously.

I don't attribute it to stupidity. (Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.)

They tried to use other organizations logos in their "loved by section" to make their product seem more trustworthy than it was. By using smart language they could have gotten away with it in case of a lawsuit, and most companies don't even bother to go after stuff like this. By the time a lawsuit could have been relevant, their landing page would have changed. It's because I respect their competence that I attribute it as intentional.

Don't get me wrong, I don't give a rats ass about what someone does with some large company/organization logos on their website, it's not that I'm trying to stop some misuse of their trademarks. But if you chat with us about your page, and try to be honest about that the section there is toeing the line of truth, don't call it marketing, just tell us you lied on your webpage. It's not the end of the world to tell a lie on the internet.
1 comments
caboteria 1097 days ago
> Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Sorry, this false dichotomy is one of my pet peeves. It should read "Never attribute to something that which is adequately explained by something else."

link
rosmax_1337 1097 days ago
The observation that stupidity and incompetence is more common than malice (by many degrees) is correct. It's not a true logical dichotomy, it's just a saying.
link
SantalBlush 1097 days ago
The saying presents it as a dichotomy, which is why the saying is wrong. It is also parroted way too often on HN.

It might as well be, "Never attribute to hunger that which can be explained by incompetence." Is it easier to see why that fails as any sort of useful proverb?

link
bheadmaster 1096 days ago
It is not a dichotomy, as the saying doesn't say "it must be either malice or stupidity" - it only proposes to also keep supidity in mind in case malice is assumed. Nobody is saying there can't be a third cause - you're fighting a strawman. Besides, what third reason would be relevant in this case, exactly?
link
SantalBlush 1096 days ago
>It is not a dichotomy, as the saying doesn't say "it must be either malice or stupidity"

It doesn't need to. The false dichotomy is presented in the phrasing.

>what third reason would be relevant in this case, exactly?

It's not a third reason, which is why you are confused. It is a third possibility, not a third reason. That third possibility is that both malice and stupidity are present. In such a case, if stupidity could adequately explain the action, the saying suggests ruling out malice, which would be incorrect. That is precisely why it is a false dichotomy.

It's not a strawman, you just haven't thought about it correctly.

link
bheadmaster 1095 days ago
> The false dichotomy is presented in the phrasing.

No, it isn't, the phrasing is very clear: if you think it's malice, also consider stupidity. It's an implication - if "A", then "B". It doesn't say anything about the case of "not A".

You're just making shit up now, with personal insults ("you're confused", "you haven't thought about it correctly") added as a filler for your weak reasoning.

link
rosmax_1337 1096 days ago
You have to understand, the world is probabilistic and when working with people even more so. No one here is making an absolutely logical dichotomy which is ripe to be disproven by someone like Diogenes exclaiming "Behold! A man!" whilst holding up a featherless biped.
link