> But the NYT should be inherently trusted, unless I read your original comment incorrectly.
Yes - I believe you did read it incorrectly. I am personally inclined to trust the NYT more than the words of a CEO of a tech company; I personally put more trust in the former rather than the latter.
As you’ve eloquently laid out - that’s a personal choice I make, and I own that. But I am not declaiming in my comment that the NYT should be inherently trusted by all.
Now - if you want to ask me that question directly: I do think that the NYT is more trustworthy than Coinbase. And if you want my opinion on the matter, yeah - I think you should trust the NYT too!
But: that simply wasn’t what I said in my original comment. I don’t think that’s a fair reading of it at all.
> You literally called it "fundamental truth" in your original comment, so I'm actually a bit curious about your answer to your own question.
I would answer it by saying you’ve missed the forest for the trees. I was not alleging that the article will be “fundamental truth” - in the sense that every word it says will be true. Rather, my comments in context imply that I trust there will be at least some truth in the article - and that the words Coinbase published serve to highlight the presumed core of truth in the article.
What you’ve said here is nitpicking at a word and ignoring how it’s used in the context of my words as a whole, and doesn’t move the conversation forward.
> This is not enlightened discourse. Again, just because you think it is doesn't mean that it is. Specially when using vague non-descriptions like "amateurish".
You’re right; this is devolving into name-calling. And I stand by my usage of “amateurish”. That is a perfectly acceptable word to use in a discussion here, and it’s not even as imprecise as you claim. If you have questions about what it means, of course, do ask.
I’m not going to engage further on this thread. You’re nit-picking at words here in a really unkind way.