this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2026
593 points (99.3% liked)
Technology
86219 readers
2953 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
While I agree with not buying being better that giving them money. I can't agree with leadership being smart.
This thing was never going to be profitable. So they either:
a) they're actively malicious — they were never planning on profiting which means this is basically a pump and dump scheme capable of triggering some form of recession;
b) they're fucking morons for believing their own fantasies, which judging by their public appearances would track.
Former seems just as plausible, but my bet is on the latter. These AI bro CEOs seem to be woefully average at best.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
I assume you're operating off this principle, and I understand the point, but it's ill conceived for our purposes. Where malice and stupidity are functionally identical, preparing for malice is equivalent to preparing for stupidity. Where malice and stupidity differ, malice is more dangerous and requires greater preparation. Hanlon's Razor is a good perspective to prevent escalation in cycles of revenge, but it's bad perspective for strategy.
It's safe to assume some portion of highly educated and entrenched powers are willing to undermine the public good for their own gain. We shouldn't allow our selves or our peers to dismiss potential adversaries as stupid. Even if the leadership was composed entirely of nepo-nitwits, there are competent people working for them, advising them, and benefiting from their success.
I want this response to be higher. This is an excellent take.
I've worked too many places where "b" is absolutely the answer. Even small companies that you've probably never heard of where management is drinking the koolaid. They usually don't like being asked why someone would actually pay for whatever bullshit they're selling. The answer, almost without exception, is because one of their CEO buddies told them it was a good idea.