Commenters reacted to the Economist's take on Muhammad bin Salman by blaming his personal misjudgments and the top-down power that enables them. Several people called his decisions catastrophic: one labeled restarting the Yemen conflict a "Darwin award" move, another called him a "moron" whose unchecked authority lets him pursue harebrained schemes. Others focused on waste and aesthetics - a former insider described projects as "fractally stupid," critiquing a cyberpunk taste that produced impractical features like a ski resort dam and schemes to "freeze" a lake to match a render. A competing strand framed the problem as money with no good purpose, or as larger geopolitical fallout.
Opinion divides over whether the fault lies specifically with monarchy or with concentrated power more generally. Some argued a king is uniquely dangerous because criticism is impossible, while others insisted democracies can produce equally destructive leaders; one commenter contrasted Trump and Charles to argue that presidential or royal titles alone don’t determine competence. Another provocative claim held that the spread of renewables will make petro-states less relevant, reflecting a belief that technological change, not just leadership failures, will reshape the region.
Summary generated by AI from the linked article. hn.today is not affiliated with Hacker News or Y Combinator.