> Can most of these predictions in the article even be wrong? There's no specific timeline given for falsifiability, but the title implies that we could genero

> Can most of these predictions in the article even be wrong? There's no specific timeline given for falsifiability, but the title implies that we could generously bound it by 2100 or 2122. Assuming we had such a timeframe, and looking only at the first 20: 3, 4, 8, and 12 contain specific predictions that can be easily determined to be true or false. 1 and 5 contain predictions that lack numerical specificity, but if they had it, they would be easily determined to be true or false. 2, 7, 9, 10, 14, and 16 contain predictions that are somewhat vague, but I think most people could reasonably agree on a specific, easily determinable prediction that captures the intent of the prediction. 11 and 13, to the extent that I can draw a prediction out of them, seem to reflect things that already exist today. (I might also stick 2 in here as well). 15 and 18 describe things that contain somewhat vague predictions where I think reasonable agreement on specific, easily determinable predictions is challenging. 6, 17, 19, and 20 are hot garbage. So if you're being pretty strict, 20% of the predictions contain something falsifiable; if you're being charitable, you can't push it past 70%. Although I would personally credit only the first two categories (so, 30%). (FWIW, I agree with... almost none of these predictions.)