6 ms·

So basically he didn't get anything but #6 (facebook) and #10 (which is more of an insider joke than a prediction) right. Remember this next time you read Yegge

So basically he didn't get anything but #6 (facebook) and #10 (which is more of an insider joke than a prediction) right. Remember this next time you read Yegge's rants.

fishercs 17y ago
facebook was already out in 2004, and everyone was on myspace.
- intellectronica 17y ago
  Good point. That wasn't hard to predict.
randallsquared 17y ago
Remember this next time you read Yegge's rants. Well, even deep understanding doesn't imply the ability to predict, unless chance plays little role -- a stipulation which is manifestly not the case, here. Edit: grammar
- intellectronica 17y ago
  Deep understanding should discourage one from making predictions, though.
  - randallsquared 17y ago
    Depends on your goal. If your goal is to avoid making statements that are wrong, then sure. If your goal is to be interesting and say provocative things, maybe not so much. :)
intellectronica 17y ago
I'm surprised to see that I'm getting a negative response to this comment. Would someone care to explain what makes it so controversial?
- steveklabnik 17y ago
  Well, you're committing an ad homenim, for one thing... this article could be completely, 100% wrong, and it has no affect on the correctness of his next one. But I also didn't downvote you, so I can't speak for those that did.
  - sker 17y ago
    I don't think he offended Yegge in any way. It's a valid point to make when someone goes to make inaccurate predictions: you have to take that into consideration for future articles. But well, this is Hacker News these days.
    - DrJokepu 17y ago
      I agree with you, it certainly makes sense in my opinion to question the credibility of predictions based on a history of bad predictions. For example, I am ridiculously bad at estimating how much time implementing features / fixing bugs would take. Most of the time I'm really off, at least by a factor of 2. Surely my manager should take this fact into consideration when asking me how much time something would take me when planning the timeline/schedule (he does, in fact).
    - steveklabnik 17y ago
      > It's a valid point to make when someone goes to make inaccurate predictions: you have to take that into consideration for future articles. Nope, that's a logical fallacy. Lots of people do it, yes. I'm guilty of it myself. But that doesn't mean that it's correct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
      - aswanson 17y ago
        It is not a logical fallacy nor ad hominem to take into account the number of times someone has been incorrect about a specific subject matter in order to estimate how much one should weigh the probability of said individual being correct on future related matters. That is, unless one has complete and correct information about the future.

So basically he didn't get anything but #6 (facebook) and #10 (which is more of an insider joke than a prediction) right. Remember this next time you read Yegge's rants.

fishercs 17y ago

facebook was already out in 2004, and everyone was on myspace.

intellectronica 17y ago
Good point. That wasn't hard to predict.

randallsquared 17y ago

Remember this next time you read Yegge's rants. Well, even deep understanding doesn't imply the ability to predict, unless chance plays little role -- a stipulation which is manifestly not the case, here. Edit: grammar

intellectronica 17y ago
Deep understanding should discourage one from making predictions, though.
- randallsquared 17y ago
  Depends on your goal. If your goal is to avoid making statements that are wrong, then sure. If your goal is to be interesting and say provocative things, maybe not so much. :)

intellectronica 17y ago

I'm surprised to see that I'm getting a negative response to this comment. Would someone care to explain what makes it so controversial?

steveklabnik 17y ago
Well, you're committing an ad homenim, for one thing... this article could be completely, 100% wrong, and it has no affect on the correctness of his next one. But I also didn't downvote you, so I can't speak for those that did.
- sker 17y ago
  I don't think he offended Yegge in any way. It's a valid point to make when someone goes to make inaccurate predictions: you have to take that into consideration for future articles. But well, this is Hacker News these days.
  - DrJokepu 17y ago
    I agree with you, it certainly makes sense in my opinion to question the credibility of predictions based on a history of bad predictions. For example, I am ridiculously bad at estimating how much time implementing features / fixing bugs would take. Most of the time I'm really off, at least by a factor of 2. Surely my manager should take this fact into consideration when asking me how much time something would take me when planning the timeline/schedule (he does, in fact).
  - steveklabnik 17y ago
    > It's a valid point to make when someone goes to make inaccurate predictions: you have to take that into consideration for future articles. Nope, that's a logical fallacy. Lots of people do it, yes. I'm guilty of it myself. But that doesn't mean that it's correct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
    - aswanson 17y ago
      It is not a logical fallacy nor ad hominem to take into account the number of times someone has been incorrect about a specific subject matter in order to estimate how much one should weigh the probability of said individual being correct on future related matters. That is, unless one has complete and correct information about the future.