Interesting response from the journalist of the Decrypt article that recently gave airtime to a piece of junk science on Bitcoin mining, without critical evaluation or considering contrary voices of the scientific consensus on Bitcoin and energy. Rather than engage with the points I made about errors in the paper @0x_exitnode covered, he chose to accuse me of not reading his entire article. 🤣 (I did). 2nd thing: just because you don't present the articles claims as fact, doesn't mean your job as a journalist is done (unless you're choosing a low bar of journalism). How about informing readers? offering contrary voices? consulting the Bitcoin mining industry? contextualizing with the scientific consensus that shows Bitcoin mining has positive environmental externalities? A simple Google search on "Bitcoin environmental benefits" would go a long way towards elevating you from average journalism to investigative journalism.