Thanks for you kind word and for asking this great question. I have to admit that the claim is more for marketing purpose to make it look impressive. The truth is that we tested the design with a small group of folks, including myself, students, a career coach and friends. We use this design during our job searches and we have landed interviews/offers from the companies listed in the logo clouds. It works for a small sample size of us, so we include the logos up there to enhance its credibility that it at least has proven to work for some companies out there.
>I have to admit that the claim is more for marketing purpose to make it look impressive.
If you are going to be honest about lying by admitting to us that you lied, just state that it was a lie, don't euphemize it as marketing. Otherwise the "honesty" just comes of as manipulation.
I apologize for the confusion the statement has caused and comes off as lying. The statement is accurate and is in fact tested & likened by students and employees listed in the logo cloud. I appreciate the feedback that given it is only a handful of us, this statement can give the wrong impressions that it is more widely used than people perceive. I want to keep the project honest, clear and transparent as much as possible and I just create the issue to track this: https://github.com/xitanggg/open-resume/issues/7. I will remove the statement next to not mislead anyone and might consider adding it back only if we have more social proofs from more users in the future.
I guess you could just be totally open about it, and change the wording to something like "the open-resume design already helped some people land positions at", then show the logos. That way you are being honest, and doesn't look like a direct endorsement from those companies. You get your logos for "marketing", and you are safe from misinterpretation. IANAL.
>The statement is accurate and is in fact tested & likened by students and employees listed in the logo cloud.
I have no doubts your claim as it was written in text was correct. The lie was by layout and usage of company and university logos. These kinds of "we are trusted by" and "in cooperation with" sections are common, it's what you're making in that section, and the usage of logos in those sections always mean the same thing: these organisations use/trust our software.
They claimed companies like Google and some universities trusted their software. If you read it word by word, it was only a claim that people who worked at the companies and who studied at the universities trusted their software, but the usage of company and university logos also made clear claim that the companies and universities themselves had endorsed it.
They admitted it was for marketing purposes, and I added that rather than to euphemize it as marketing, they should instead admit that they lied, otherwise their attempt at honesty comes of as manipulative. It is possible to tell a lie by the usage of logos and layout, not only in text.
I don't really attribute this maliciously. Yeah, it may be overstepping it a bit but the wording can make sense (but they should definitively change it). Developers generally aren't great marketers and these guys aren't native in english.
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.
> 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."
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.
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?
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?
>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.
> 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.
>if you think it's malice, also consider stupidity.
That is not what it is saying. "Never attribute to malice..." has an entirely different meaning from merely considering stupidity as an alternative as you're suggesting.
It means exactly what it says: never attribute [action] to malice. That rules out malice as an explanation. It doesn't say, "maybe don't attribute [action] to malice," or "also consider stupidity," it says, very clearly, "never attribute to malice", which means "do not ever attribute to malice..." So yes, you do seem to be confused about the very clear meaning of this saying.
> It means exactly what it says: never attribute [action] to malice
No, it does not. You are blatantly misquoting the original statement. Since you're so stuck up on the literal phrasing, let's be precise: never attribute to malice what can be adequatly explained by stupidity.
Which means, if you are attributing some action to malice, then stop and consider whether stupidity is an adequate explanation. And if it is, then don't attribute it to malice. And if not, then feel free to attribute it to malice! This is in no way "rules out" malice as an explanation. If there is any evidence of malice, then by definition stupidity will not explain that evidence, and thus will not be an adequate explanation. So there is no dichotomy either.
The very sentence is merely a statement on how to evaluate intentions in light of limited evidence - it says nothing about the truth, as human knowledge is always limited by available information, especially in human relations.
> Which means, if you are attributing some action to malice, then stop and consider whether stupidity is an adequate explanation. And if it is, then don't attribute it to malice.
Yes, this is exactly what I am saying. We agree, and you finally get it. You are describing the false dichotomy perfectly: "If it is adequately be explained by stupidity, then don't attribute it to malice." That is the false dichotomy, because both could be present at the same time.
>You are blatantly misquoting the original statement
No, I used ellipses for a reason: "Never attribute to malice..." means there is more to the quote, but I am focusing on this specific part. I could have made that more clear in my writing though. At any rate, we're done here, because we agree on the meaning of the saying.
No, we don't agree, and it is not me who finally got it. You explicitly wrote: "It means exactly what it says: never attribute [action] to malice" which I explicitly disagreed with.
Either you have changed your mind, in which case you have no business acting as if you were right all along, or we don't agree.
> I could have made that more clear in my writing though
Yes, you could. Nobody can read your mind, only your words. Try not being so arrogant next time.
>No, we don't agree, and it is not me who finally got it.
Well, which is it? Do we not agree, or have I "finally got it" ("it" being, I assume, what you're trying to convey)? Because if I finally got what you're saying, then that suggests we would be in agreement. Or maybe you mean you've changed your position and I "finally got" your original argument, but now you're onto a new one. If that is the case, then please clarify your new position so I can finally get that one as well.
The saying presents a false dichotomy, which is highlighted here:
>...stop and consider whether stupidity is an adequate explanation. And if it is, then don't attribute it to malice
This is a false dichotomy because it is saying if stupidity is present, then don't attribute it to malice. But both can be present at the same time, in which case rejecting malice would be incorrect. Do you understand now? It is very simple, and this is what I wrote toward the top of the thread. You're grasping at straws here, and my position has not changed the entire time.
Please, read the saying again, read our discussion again, and think about it before you respond. What you're writing is incorrect.
Do you also believe that the saying "An apple a day keeps the doctor away." means to persuade people to increase their consumption of specifically apples, once each day? Rather than meaning to explain that fruits (and even vegetables) are good for your health in general, with no specific amounts prescribed?
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.
It's not a lie if people from those companies are endorsing the product
Now, I know from experience, you probably want to hear from their legal team (or have a contract which make it explicit) before putting a company's logo on your website as an endorsement - but I doubt they'll sue you
