Again, Just raising the block size was a simple and elegant solution that could have avoided a contentious hard fork, while allowing thousands or tens of thousands of people to have access to their funds in a timely manner.
Simple in code perhaps, but not in terms of adoption and network compatibility.
Hard forks ought to be adopted on a timeline of
years, not a few months, and that's assuming there is general social consensus to adopt the fork. Otherwise you risk mass confusion and financial loss: the network could split, the blockchain(s) could be repeatedly reorganized and -- perhaps most notably -- trust in the Bitcoin network to reliably reach consensus would be lost.
I'm not fundamentally opposed to hard forks and UASFs, but I am quite disappointed that people think they should be adopted on such compressed timelines. I think the rushed mindsets characterized by all the hard fork attempts and the BIP148 UASF are real affronts to the expansive and diverse nature of our network.