A network engineer would just sigh and get to working with the partner or 3rd party to confirm this isn't a network related issue.

Hanlons razor.

It was probably just stupidity.

Outside of the theater of war, laziness is at least as likely as stupidity.

I'm proof of that!

This comment assumes you're being sarcastic. "Halon's Razor" as a concept is pretty popular, it's not that out of the ordinary to expect for you to know (especially if your peruse this site). Add to this with the fact that you're on a computer, you can select the text, right click --> search on <engine> in probably under 3 seconds to find out what it is means that it's fair just to type the phrase and not have to add on the adage that it represents.

It's just a 100% empty comment. Literally every time something like this comes up, someone has to pipe up, "Hanlon's razor!" without any reference to actual details of the situation. Like, you are not smarter for knowing the phrase "Hanlon's razor," Hanlon's razor is not some deep piece of wisdom about the world, its literally just a catchphrase that takes 0 brainpower to repeat.

Sorry, kind of a pet peeve of mine.

I haven't. This is my first time actually. It's pretty cool, didn't know about it.

Thanks OP.

Hanlon's/Occam's/etc. razors are just heuristics.

And accusations of sabotage without proof of any sort is baseless conjecture.

Heinlein's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice."

More on common razor heuristics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razor_%28philosophy%29

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_razor

A better way to state it, IMO;

Stupidity should be assumed. Malice demands evidence.

But it comes down to intent. Impute intent only when indicated. Which when you think about it is only fair. It’s self-evident Visa fucked up, but a claim it was malicious must be substantiated or it’s just trolling.

Really? It's "self-evident" Visa fucked up? Yeah...I'll be waiting for the statement to that effect on visa.com

And then I saw this comment: "Thats weird. I have a mastercard and was charged twice. So how is it Visas fault."

“The aim of science is to seek the simplest explanation of complex facts. We are apt to fall into the error of thinking that the facts are simple because simplicity is the goal of our quest. The guiding motto in the life of every natural philosopher should be “Seek simplicity and distrust it.”

– Alfred North Whitehead

I am not saying somebody at VISA did it intentionally, I just don't understand why am I supposed to assume they didn't given whatever popular logical razor that can't be a tautology on its own.

Because supposing malicious intent without any evidence to support the conclusion is uncharitable at best, and libelous at worst.

It’s a philosophy which many people find beneficial, to try to shape your thinking in a way that you set a higher bar before believing something negative was done intentionally rather than unintentionally.

The inverse (converse?) is also be true — when lacking conclusive evidence either way, assuming positive things are done intentionally and not unintentionally.

Another way to think about it is; what’s the cost of being wrong? It’s as simple as giving the benefit of the doubt.

> uncharitable at best

I am fine with that. I am not going to assume "good intentions" by default, but case by case as I see fit. Even if my biases get in the way (like with any untrained human). If there is a non-zero probability of somebody intentionally causing something, i.e. it cannot be counter-factually refuted, then it has to be handled as one possible explanation, however unlikely it is.

Haven't you ever seen how people cook the books for businesses to appear flawless? Ohh, that small mistake? Just an error, don't look too much into that! Let's have a drink and here is your ticket to a strip club to entertain you! Have fun!

> i.e it cannot be counter-factually refuted, then it has to be handled as one possible explanation, however unlikely it is.

ergo, we must accuse all others of whichever crimes are not literally logical impossibilities.

Nope, just keep it in your list of probable reasons. Like when you do particle filters, you have your most probable states but nevertheless keep probabilities that you are wrong and you are in fact in any of the other possible states.

This is why I hate Hanlon's razor. It's a totally generic catchphrase that people on HN just keep repeating. It's not an argument.

As opposed to a working theory of malfeasance and corruption which is what?

I am simply pointing out that throwing around some popular heuristics isn't something a rational person should default to, and that these have their limits as well. What's wrong with that? If I were to run a criminal syndicate, I would take the least probable explanations and make them core of my enterprise due to blindness caused by popularity of applying razors everywhere.

"Assume positive intent" is not going to help you when your money is gone.

Not Occam’s razor.

http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/13/6/1076

From wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor:

"In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic guide in the development of theoretical models, rather than as a rigorous arbiter between candidate models."

Looking at Universal Induction:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff%27s_theory_of_induc...

Isn't Universal Induction non-computable? What logics does it work in and which ones are beyond its reach? Is it applied purely to countable set of all programs or could it extend to real-world as well? One would expect it holds in precisely structured logics like first-order predicate logic, so that's not a surprise.