I've very often found that people will speak dismissively of "hindsight", when in fact there were many people beforehand pointing out exactly what was likely to go wrong.

As the article suggests, it's usually not even very hard to think about things from different perspectives.

This came up in discussion about the Challenger explosion. Basically: the O-ring problem is obvious now, but how were they to know at the time that this one problem was the one they had to address, among the thousands of other issues they were dealing with?

But if you go back and look at it, that was a loud problem with people saying "astronauts are going to die if you don't fix this," and there wasn't anything else of similar urgency.

Hindsight bias is definitely common. "They should have known!" But so is a sort of anti-hindsight bias. "They never could have known!"

> when in fact there were many people beforehand pointing out exactly what was likely to go wrong.

There's a strong survivors bias here. You can usually always find some people pointing out that something might happen. That doesn't really tell you anything about the validity of their arguments.