4 ms·
> although many of these hits require reinterpreting "most" as "many" and so on. Words have meanings, if he says "most" and it is less than 50% of the total th
by gooseus 8y ago
> although many of these hits require reinterpreting "most" as "many" and so on.
Words have meanings, if he says "most" and it is less than 50% of the total then I'd have to say it's a miss.
I mean, just look at his 2009 predictions, if we just assessed his 2009 predictions as if they were for today I'd guess he'd still struggle to get 50% hit rate without favorable "reinterpretations".
I've always had a hard time understanding the appeal of futurists and their wild claims, especially amongst a population (techies) who I continue to assume are more skeptical in general.
- jcranmer 8y agoI didn't compare the list to the 2009 predictions. When you try to see the trend line of what he meant from 2009 on... yeah, the miss rate is pretty abysmal. In his 2009 predictions, there are 8 that are pretty thoroughly not true today, most of which have to do with medicine. There's another dozen or so that I would also flag as not-true or just-barely-true today. That still leaves about half of the predictions as being true for today. But the general theme? Yeah, that's a pretty bad miss all around.
- eesmith 8y agoHere's what HN thought about the 2009 predictions, in 2010 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1064789 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1064789 .