pull down to refresh
I think Carter actually made the original fud dice:
I forgot about that. The irony!
In the context of my post, I am asking whether we should make some effort to appease the people who are actually fudding even when they are actually fudding.
Fair. In that case, my answer is: no. "We" (the royal we) should meet legitimate critiques with well-reasoned responses. If "we" don't find the critique legitimate, there's not much use in responding to it -- it's not going to convince the FUDder, since (by definition) they're engaging in bad faith; and for the audience who may be reading, such engagement countenances the original bad-faith argument.
Also I don't really think the definition of fud has changed: it's in the same set of words as terrorist and troll and as such it's always a little bit of rhetoric, it's wordy weapon to dismiss people.
We appear to disagree on this point: once upon a time, my sense is that one could raise concerns that were viewed as actual concerns to be considered; the response was to consider them and (perhaps) counter them. Now, raising concerns is met with accusations of bad faith; and usually, idiotic personal slander and fourth-grade histrionics. That seems different and (relatively) new. (But, as mentioned elsewhere, perhaps I'm doing what everyone does, and remembering a past that was better than it was.)
I'd wager that every legitimate threat has been called fud over the years, as have many illegitimate threats.
That it assuredly true.
once upon a time...Now, raising concerns is met with accusations of bad faith; and usually, idiotic personal slander and fourth-grade histrionics.
Bitcoin developers (as seen at conferences and on the mailing list and on delving) have been considering quantum threats for several years and the larger community has taken them seriously: presidio did a whole conference about quantum. Chaincode released an excellent report on the topic. I don't think the first, or even most common, response to quantum computing has been personal slander or fourth-grade histrionics -- that just comes out eventually.
I will admit that I am more willing to entertain the fourth grade histrionics and personal slander because the little kid in me gets an evil joy out of the irreverence of Bitcoiners. I'm glad we make fun of each other in stupid ways.
In that way, I'm kinda like the little kid henchman in 90s movies who's always hanging around the villain and chuckling at his insults, but who isn't quick witted enough to even beat the doofus villain to the punch. I long for the days of retorts like "I know you are, but what am I?" and butthead.
I don't think the first, or even most common, response to quantum computing has been personal slander or fourth-grade histrionics -- that just comes out eventually.
That's context I didn't consider, and it makes a big difference.
I long for the days of retorts like "I know you are, but what am I?" and butthead.
Ha! When I read your original post, I thought to myself that if I had been the recipient of NVK's comment, "I know you are, but what am I?" would have been my retort.
How come you never hear that any more? It was probably the peak of the English language.
If we ever meet, brother, I promise you'll hear it. That and other idiotic "burns" form a core part of my repertoire IRL.
I think Carter actually made the original fud dice:
I don't get the sense that the response to Nic is that he doesn't have sufficient conviction. There are two attitudes I see expressed: 1) quantum threat is being used to push dangerous things on bitcoin and 2) quantum threat is being used to put pressure on bitcoin "governance."
In the context of my post, I am asking whether we should make some effort to appease the people who are actually fudding even when they are actually fudding.
Also I don't really think the definition of fud has changed: it's in the same set of words as terrorist and troll and as such it's always a little bit of rhetoric, it's wordy weapon to dismiss people. I'd wager that every legitimate threat has been called fud over the years, as have many illegitimate threats.