Honestly, I think it's downright dishonest to talk about someone's predictions for what the future would look like and never actually show what their prediction

Honestly, I think it's downright dishonest to talk about someone's predictions for what the future would look like and never actually show what their predictions were. This case is particularly annoying, because it's a newspaper summarizing a blog post that's summarizing the original predictions, so there's no actual direct quotations in the article linked here. Although even the originating blog post carries minimal quotations, with such that it does have so thoroughly trimmed that it's hard to actually ascertain what the predictions were in the first place. Although in one case--the claim of predicting the escalator--the original quotation is not so thoroughly clipped to prevent the assignment of the escalator to the prediction is laughably false: > [...] lift to the door of his office! If he has to go anywhere on foot moving sidewalks will save him exertion. In his office there will be good automatic telephones, which will get the right number every time! If in [...] Even the brevity of the clip seems clear that the idea is that moving sidewalks would be the norm in cities as a form of public transport, as opposed to the situation today where moving sidewalks are largely limited to airports and complex train stations, where gates may be some distance. The closest equivalent I can think of is Hong Kong's use of the escalator in a few streets as public transport. Given that moving sidewalks were debuted at least 30 years before the prediction, it should be obvious that the prediction wasn't their existence but their ubiquity. In general, a lot of these "old futurists correctly predicted the modern world!" types of articles tend to rely very heavily on misinterpreting the predictions to be able to grade them correct, which is why I'm frustrated when the articles don't even bother to source the predictions in their entirety.