Hanlons razor.
It was probably just stupidity.
It was probably just stupidity.
More on common razor heuristics:
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.
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.
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!
ergo, we must accuse all others of whichever crimes are not literally logical impossibilities.
And then I saw this comment: "Thats weird. I have a mastercard and was charged twice. So how is it Visas fault."
– Alfred North Whitehead
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.
"Assume positive intent" is not going to help you when your money is gone.