> This has very strong "cruelty is the point" vibes.

Hanlon's razor. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Regardless of what you think about the wisdom of the policy itself, implementing it rapidly is...probably not the best decision. But it's also par for the course for this administration.

It's not clear to me that this is an intended consequence of the policy change, or just Microsoft's attorneys being conservative in the face of chaos. A plain-text reading of the EO does not support the interpretation that people with existing H1B visas would be subject to the restrictions, but rather, seems like an ambiguity in the wording that a conservative lawyer could interpret in that manner:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/rest...

> Section 1. Restriction on Entry. (a) Pursuant to sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), the entry into the United States of aliens as nonimmigrants to perform services in a specialty occupation under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), is restricted, except for those aliens whose petitions are accompanied or supplemented by a payment of $100,000 — subject to the exceptions set forth in subsection (c) of this section.

▲

Havoc 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Unfortunately I think there is enough track record that the administration no longer has benefit of doubt from Hanlon's razor. e.g.

>“We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected,” he said. “When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the villains."

sauce: https://www.propublica.org/article/video-donald-trump-russ-v...

▲

timr 3 hours ago | parent [-]

So basically, you don't know, and you're violating Hanlon's razor because you think its wrong this time.

The fact that this administration routinely implements policies of all types in this way suggests that rambunctious implementation is the default explanation for any particular outcome.

▲

dathos 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Violating Hanlon’s razor like it’s some universal always true rule?

	▲	timr 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		A razor is a default presumption, yes. It allows you to "shave off" unlikely explanations. When you find yourself violating a philosophical razor, it's a strong indication that you should question your priors.

▲

Havoc 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>you don't know

Neither do you.

Hanlon's razor is a good baseline when you have no information pointing to either option.

But when you have an administration that climbs onto a podium and announces they want to traumatize people, that's a pretty direct admission of malice in my books. You're free to conclude we're just seeing a string of repeated stupidity, but frankly I think it's incredibly naive to still given them the benefit of doubt.

▲

actionfromafar 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This level of carelessness is malicious. Reckless neglect at best.

	▲	timr 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's an assertion of opinion, not a fact. This administration has a pattern of implementing policies this way, regardless of domain.

▲

pinkmuffinere 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity

How is this adequately explained by stupidity? Sincerely, I truly cannot imagine anyone in the US government is stupid enough to think "15 hours is enough time". This is like, 3rd grade levels of thought.

▲

timr 3 hours ago | parent [-]

You're confusing facts with the opinions of others.

Read the EO. There's literally nothing in the EO stating that pre-existing visa holders are subject to the new rules. Someone else is interpreting the EO, and you're assuming that their opinion is the correct interpretation.

▲

yibg 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The language of the EO isn't clear, that's the point. Unless the administration comes out with clarification and guidance on what and who is in scope, then one can only assume either maliciousness or incompetence.

▲

Scoundreller 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> or stating that pre-existing visa holders are subject to the new rules

How are you interpreting "on entry"?

▲

timr 3 hours ago | parent [-]

In the plain text manner. To me the more relevant portion is this:

> ...except for those aliens whose petitions are accompanied or supplemented by a payment of $100,000

Again, just doing a plain text reading, this seems to be intended to apply to new applicants, but they didn't explicitly spell it out. It's the sort of thing that would be debated endlessly in the rounds of legal review that accompany a...more traditional...change to law, but when done quickly via EO tends to get overlooked.

▲

pinkmuffinere 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I see, you're saying the stupidity here is that they didn't clarify whether it applies to existing holders. Given that possible explanation-via-stupidity, it's unlikely that it was pure malice. I actually think you make a good point. I think the proposed method-via-stupidity is important for understanding your initial claim, I doubt many people have read the EO (indeed many will not even read the linked article)

	▲	timr 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah, exactly. Given the text of the EO plus the public statements about it from the administration, it sounds like an ambiguous drafting, coupled with lawyers doing what they do best (i.e. the most conservative possible interpretation of any ambiguity).

▲

hvb2 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I read it as, it either was accompanied by a payment already or it has to be supplemented

Where the supplement would obviously be for the existing ones

	▲	timr 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Except you have to ignore every prior word of the sentence I quoted to make that interpretation.
	▲	2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]