https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/14/dogecoin-co-creator-jackson-...
Really though, it's surprising that a lot of people have this same knee-jerk reaction to someone having an opinion and then changing it when making a comment (here, Reddit, etc.). Obviously it's not great to change your opinion with the wind or to simply please others but it's sad that any form of changing your opinion is seen as negative. Even for people that I would trust to be authorities on the subject like Jackson Palmer are not given the benefit of the doubt. Maybe it's a natural reaction to someone who doesn't conform to the group mentality on some subject.
I'm really lost.
> @TerrysFishyTips: Billy when you made #doge coin did you try to consider energy usage or was that not something you thought about? How can the dev community make doge more efficient?
> @BillyM2K: i made doge in like 2 hours i didn't consider anything
[edit] So with this in mind, no, I don't find their position hypocritical. I quite enjoy following Billy's twitter. It's one of the most friendly/positive in the space, he's clearly trying to uh, do only good everyday if you will.
[1] https://twitter.com/BillyM2k/status/1392952014854778883?s=20
Elon Musk could have picked anything, he picked Dogecoin because... satire.
I think people still don't get in an inter-connected world for 7 billion people and losing established religions and other old mind memes jokes are worth billions, people will lose and gain lives over them, they will spend parts of their lives centred around jokes. They won't go to church, community markets or medieval fairs, they'll go to Dogecoin stores, why not?
Dogecoin was just a cookie cutter crypto with marketing and I would think mostly others took his idea and meme'ed it to the moon.
He can change his mind, but it still is what is was day one.
Changing your mind about something is a sign of open-mindedness, not lack of self-reflection
- Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer
I don't know how far back in time it takes for a disconnect of 'who was I then to do that?' or 'I can't believe I did that' but sometimes I think back to recent things and get so embarrassed my face turns red and heats up.
Like Bill Burr sometimes I have to scream it out and wriggle to release the shame.
The simultaneous part is important, if your beliefs change and your actions change accordingly; that doesn't count as hypocrisy in my book.
It seems to me that his personal journey granted him a privileged vantage point to talk about this topic, with more insight than the vast majority of people.
Clearly, if anyone did that exercise in self-reflection, it was him. Don't you agree?
And why is he, of all people, the one being singled out and required to meet all those high bars?
That's very different than the crypto lovers that don't change their opinion because of greed.
Without this cycle we would have never gotten out of the Stone Age.
And then advocating for something which makes logically sense to help other who don't follow to deep into the topic itself.
Awesome person :)
It sounds like he's (successfully)advocating against participating in crypto to me.
I don't see what he has to be ashamed about? Nobody died. He created a thing as a joke, took it seriously, looked at it seriously and re-evaluated the pursuit. He comes out wealthier and wiser.
fact /fakt/
noun: fact; plural noun: facts a thing that is known or proved to be true.
40 years ago, the following was a fact: "There is a country in Europe named Yugoslavia".
It is clearly not true anymore.
So, existence proof that facts can change.
You are talking about two different facts.
You may want to put some temporal logic spin on it, if that makes you happier (technically, it makes me happier, but I am content with saying "facts can change"), but the question I was trying to answer was "do facts change". I think I demonstrated that what once was factual may stop being factual.
At least this is the view that many functional programmers like to use and I find it useful.
In that model, a statement that can vary in time isn't a fact.
But the general thrust of his point remains. When the time constraints of a fact elapse and allow a new fact to replace the old fact, he changes his position. New information allows for new opinions.
Arguing about the definitions of words to score points is meaningless pedantry. You don't want to argue the actual point, that you should be able to change your mind when situations change or you learn new information. Because doing so would make you look like you're just stubborn and easily led. But for some reason, you can't agree with the quote because then you'd be granting something to the person you're currently debating with. Or to the side of the debate you agree with, seeing as we're dealing with multiple responders.
But all of this is to discuss the credibility of the Dogecoin founder. And that's a fair discussion to have, because his credibility and motives are very much relevant to why he should have certain opinions.
But now it seems the entire discussion is being done a very meta level. Where we're no longer talking about his qualifications, his stake in the success or failure of crypto, his reasons for making statements, etc. No, now we're discussing the dictionary definition of "fact".
> 40 years ago, the following was a fact: "There is a country in Europe named Yugoslavia".
It is clearly not true anymore.
So, existence proof that facts can change.
If you never do that, how can you learn anything?