Because that alternative, that we should simply &quot;hope&quot;, or the idea that such should be valued at all irrespective of purely judging such on outcomes, is itself a symptom of a fundamentally sick system overwhelmed with feel good press releases and cynical marketing PR bullshit.<p>I don&#x27;t generally go around saying: well at least I can &quot;hope&quot; that when I eat this burger it will give me sustenance rather than poisoning and killing me, because the later has a miniscule chance of happening relative to our everyday experience. Indeed, what a sad and desperate situation we would have to be in to say: &quot;eat the burger, and just hope it doesn&#x27;t kill you&quot;.<p>So indeed, needing to &quot;hope&quot; , or pointing out that we should &quot;hope&quot; wouldn&#x27;t be a good thing. It is itself a symptom of a system whereby the necessity of suggesting that we should hope about a bullshit PR release in fact reveals that what we&#x27;re talking about is prima facie a bullshit PR release, or at least must be assumed to be given our common experience.<p>Perhaps it is only right that we should not expect or place value on people &quot;hoping&quot;, but suggest that we give praise to people, Mr Z or otherwise, when they actually do something, not when they put out a sappy marketing piece about &quot;we&#x27;re totally gonna do something &#x27;cause luv&quot;.<p>Facebook already puts out motherhood statements regarding say, internet access to poor people, that myself and others pretty much deem thinly veiled self-serving bullshit.<p>So if anything, we should be grateful that not everyone is taken in by PR, and just say that if there is any basis to Mr. Z&#x27;s philanthropic claims, then extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and when it is forthcoming, he will be given credit.