• Varyk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    TLDR: you are apparently unaware that popular consumer smartphones like the Blackberry go back to 2002 and personal PCs like the Palm Pilot to the 90s.

    That said, these attempts are better!

    Many points you’ve written are not correct or based on incomplete information, but I appreciate the effort you made to take a clear stand with solid allegations.

    It looks like you’re ignoring the other hundred correct predictions and just want focus on the ones with one specific year, 2009, to more easily “debunk”.

    Goalposts dramatically shifted, but I like the game, so let’s do it.

    1. Personal computers are available in a wide range of sizes and shapes, and are commonly embedded in clothing and jewelry such as wristwatches, rings, earrings and other body ornaments".[20]

    You must be talking about the Apple watch, which was not the first wearable personal computer.

    People had news headlines, weather, stock tickers, step counting and heart rate monitor watches in the 2000s.

    Microsoft spot watch(2000)

    Just a check…yea, 2000 was before 2009.

    Also, the blackberry came out in 2002.

    So that’s a pass…cool.

    1. The majority of reading is done on displays rather than paper, though paper documents (including print books) are still common.[21]

    I see here you are pretending that only print books and e-book readers exist, rather than acknowledging the act of reading on a computer screen(forums, reviews, online news).

    Or maybe you forgot about computers.

    Paaass.

    1. Intelligent roads and driverless cars are in use, mostly on highways. Local roads still require full human interaction.

    Intelligent roads, of course, sensors, traffic/accident/emergency warnings, but driverless cars, uh-uh. That’s a partial fail! Local roads still did require full human interaction. I’ll take a half point. But you can have it if you don’t like it. You’ll see I don’t need it later on.

    1. > People use personal computers the size of rings, pins, credit cards and books.

    Obviously a pass, we had palm pilots in 1996, tens of millions of them and other derivations in just a few years, before even 2000. There were tons of tiny PCs in many shapes and sizes. Pocket PCs were popular and varied.

    5.> Most portable computers do not have moving parts or keyboards.

    Most portable computers did not have keyboards. Laptops okay, but truly portable PCS like palm pilots generally used a handwriting input system or stylus or the like.

    Are you pretty young? This stuff was pretty popular.

    Pass

    6.> Though desktop PCs are still common for data storage, individuals primarily use portable devices for their computer-related tasks.[22][20]

    Maybe I’m missing your point here. I can’t statistically prove this one any more than you have, but people already used their phones constantly before 2010, much more than people used PCs.

    I think you’re conflating iphones with smartphones again.

    Pass

    7. > Personal worn computers provide monitoring of body functions, automated identity and directions for navigation.

    As mentioned earlier, there were various devices that were step counters and monitored functions like heart rate. Not ubiquitous, but they were developed well before your specific cutoff date.

    The Timex Datalink came out in 1994 and monitored steps, calories, as well as calendars, phone directory, that kind of stuff

    Various straps measured heart rate like the Nike Sportband from 2006.

    So pass

    Okay! I think we’ve already matched your total number of correct predictions real quick simply by looking outside of Apple’s corporate history.

    We’ve already corrected your errors or ignorance of certain earlier consumer products. Idk, should we do more?

    Let’s double it, it’s obvious you just didn’t know about consumer tech products outside of the Apple bubble

    1. > Personal worn computers provide monitoring of body functions, automated identity and directions for navigation.

    GPS was very popular even before Apple, I’m not going to link to Garmin or Magellan or whatever. If you’re curious, you can read any history of modern consumer GPS devices, they start back in the early 90s.

    Pass.

    9.> Many devices offer high-speed network access via wireless technology. Which was an accurate prediction.[23][20]

    You passed this one, which, yea, that would be tricky even only knowing Apple history to refute.

    10. > “Most routine business transactions (purchases, travel, reservations) take place between a human and a virtual personality. Often, the virtual presentation includes an animated visual presence that looks like a human face.”[24]

    Hey a fail! Good for you. 85% correct(one partial) and one fail!

    Well, wait. Actually, most routine business transactions did have virtual personalities(excited thank yous for purchases, suggestions to do this or that, but still! There were very few faces! Okay, well, that’s a quick bump to 90% correct predictions so far from the first ten points.

    11.  > Digital products such as books, songs, games, movies and software are typically acquired as files via a wireless network and have no physical object associated with them.[23]

    Do you mean digital products derived from physical media or actual digital products? Because digital products not derived from physical products were common by 2009. Hm.

    I’ll give you a half point, why not?

    12.  > Cables are disappearing. Computer peripherals use wireless communication.[20][24]

    Doy.

    Pass

    13.  > People can talk to their computer to give commands.

    This was possible I don’t even know how long ago via accessibility on every copy of Windows. I went through a phase talking to my computer via the grid square thing. It was cool.

    And very real.

    Pass

    1. > Computer displays built into eyeglasses for augmented reality are used.[20]

    Okay, you really didn’t even look any of these up, AR glasses are old. They still weren’t cool, but they have been around a long time. Heck, that’s how they trained the astronauts in the 2000s.

    Pass

    You incorrectly claimed that “7 out of 41 were correct.”

    Instead, we’ve found 11 correct and 3 portially correct in the first 14 items on your list.

    So that’s 90% correct predictions.

    You weren’t even close.

    It seems like you are very unaware of fairly common technology before 2009.

    But just because you didn’t know about it doesn’t mean it didn’t exist.

    Shoot, you should look up the Blackberry. It was a revolutionary smartphone from 2002. It was basically apple before apple, you’d like it.

    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Re: people can talk to their computer to give commands

      His claim was that it would be typical, not that it was possible. If you use your definition, it’s a fail because Dragon Dictate was out in 1997. My Philips Nino from 1998 had voice recognition.

      Claiming already existing technology will be invented in the future isn’t a prediction. Voice input still isn’t the dominant method of data input today.

      • Varyk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        So I was going off of your claim, you wrote " people can talk to their computer to give commands".

        The modern version where you can do that was developed in the 2000s, so …

        Paaasss

        • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Dragon Dictate and voice commands in the Philips Nino were from 1997 and 1998 respectively.

          Fail.

          • Varyk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Not to control everything on the computer like in the 2k.

            Paass

              • Varyk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                I get it.

                You hate accurate dates.

                  • Varyk
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    4 months ago

                    Here’s an example of a prediction, since you’re having so much trouble.

                    “Multiple electric cars with airless tires will be sold commercially by 2035”.

                    See that?

                    It’s a scenario that doesn’t exist yet that we are pre-dic-ting (imagining the future!) will happen later on.

    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Re: Watch. You can’t pick out 1 from a list of wrong and make that a win. Especially because he listed medical monitoring which the Early watches didn’t do. Your attempt at listing an early smartwatch is also a fail because the Timex Datalink came out in 1994. Predicting a product that was for sale 5 years ago isn’t a prediction.

      MY GRAND PREDICTION: IN 2035 AN ELECTRIC CAR WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR SALE.

      • Varyk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        You’re back to struggling for a single technicality out of a list of over a dozen correct predictions that you offered up?

        Nice.

    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Re: palm pilot

      The important part of the prediction was “no moving parts”. He didn’t predict the Palm pilot, it came out in 1997.

    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Re: display built into eye glasses.

      AR in any form isn’t the specific prediction of AR built into eye glasses. AR in eye glasses wasn’t available in 2009 to consumers. AR was invented in 1968 so it isn’t a prediction.

      The prediction is the claim that AR was in eyeglasses, not that it would exist. That’s why it is a fail.

      • Varyk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        You didn’t say AR built into eyeglasses for consumers, you left out the consumers part.

        But you’re struggling, I get it.

        Let’s not take NASA’s word for it, right?

        What do they know about revolutionary tech, anyway?

        • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Show me NASA AR built into eye glasses 1999-2009. Because the only thing I can find is from 2015.

          If it existed before 1999 it’s not a prediction. If I was invented after 2009 it’s a fail.

          • Varyk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Haha, sure, sure. Okay…

            NASA had a vr lab since 92, let’s see if we can find you ar glasses in your special time frame…

            Looks like there’s some software called Doug that used cameras and sensors in goggles for astronaut training in 2001.

            • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              Again if it already existed, THAT ISN’T A PREDICTION.

              Pointing out all the things that existed before Kurzweil predicted they would be invented isn’t helping your argument.

              • Varyk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                Right, these are the things in your special decade conforming to your list.

                You’re getting really burned up huh.

                This list kind of backfired against you real hard huh?

                  • Varyk
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    Incorrect unless you’re equivocating discrete inventions.

                    Paaass

          • Varyk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Oh, and then the hmd 1, which looks more like an AR headset you recognize was in 2008. Rapidly changed into modern looking visor by 2012.

            Apparently they can see out and info is there also.

            So there you go.

            Double whammy

    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Re: driverless cars.

      You can’t take a half point. There were no driverless cars on the highways in 2009.

      If something existed before 1999 (road sensors) it isn’t a prediction so it’s a fail. If it didn’t exist by 2009 it is a fail.

      • Varyk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        I thought your whole thing was dividing these into half points based on the components of the statement.

        You want it you got it, though.

        Whatever gets you giggly.

        • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          But there’s no half. Road sensors existed before 1999 so that’s not a prediction and therefore a fail. Self driving on the highway didn’t exist in 2009 and is therefore a fail. Both fails, 0 points.

          • Varyk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            You said the statement was incorrect, but with sheet road signs, that prediction is obviously correct.

            Sorry, can’t help you squeak out of this one.

            • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              What specific smart road device that was new between 1999 and 2009 are you referring to?

              Because there were all sorts of smart road sensors in use the 1990’s. In 1994 Palo Alto, the intersections had sensors so lights instantly turned green for you if you were the only person at the intersection. The on ramps to highways had smart sensors controlling lights to control merging traffic.

              • Varyk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                Whichever one you find comforting.

    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Re: reading on computers

      As I said, if that’s the criteria then that predates 1999. The Internet exploded in 1995. People were reading on their computers before 1999.

      Reading didn’t change until everyone had a smartphone which happened after 2009. Only 17% had a smartphone in 2009.

    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      TLDR: you are apparently unaware that popular consumer smartphones like the Blackberry go back to 2002 and personal PCs like the Palm Pilot to the 90s.

      Do you have a reading or memory problem? I referenced Palm with cell data as the reason it’s not a prediction in my first replies. Predicting a product that’s already for sale isn’t a prediction.

      It’s also the specific predictions like of no mechanical interface that Kurzweil had for those devices which was wrong until the iPhone became popular and dropped the physical buttons. Which I carefully wrote but you didn’t read.

      Finally, as I already said in my conclusion, even if you give Kurzweil a handicap of of 5 yrars, that only raises his percentage to 25%,.

      Read what I wrote.

      • Varyk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Hey, of your want those happy points, take em.

        So we’re down to, what? 85% correct on the first chubby baker’s dozen (that’s 14. Cause he’s chubby)?

        I’m fine with 85% correct predictions, that seems correct and is way more concrete teeth the point I was making before, that he was right about “a lot” of stuff.

        85 percent from your own list is way more substantive.

      • Varyk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        That wasnot my cousin, but if it were I’m sure those stickers would be relevant.

        They seem very written.

    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Re: intelligent virtual assistant

      “Thank you for your order” on a web order is an intelligent assistant? Lol. But that predates 1999 so it is still a fail.

      • Varyk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Look what you wrote.

        “Most routine business transactions, purchases travel reservations, take place between a human and a virtual personality.”

        That is a pass.

        Maybe you should try for a new list?

        Because all of these ones are a pass from your requirements of 99 to 2009.

        • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          You said your definition of a virtual personality is a webpage where you type in your order and the webpage replies “thank you for your order.”

          That existed before 1999.

          Fail.

          Of course you know that’s not what he meant but you are grasping at straws because of your failures.

    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Re: Personal worn jewelry like watches, rings, pins and earrings will monitor body functions and have GPS

      Yes gps devices existed before 1999. I had a CF GPS for my Nino. If you use those devices as what his intention was when he wrote about wearable tech, it’s not a prediction so it is a fail.

      • Varyk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Mmhmmmm, okay, well I guess you don’t know about Garmin.

        The Garmin foreRunner, a smart watch, developed in 2003 integrated user physical performance, fitness and GPS.

        Paaass

          • Varyk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            But the book was written in 96 right? Wait, nope, earlier.

            1999 is after 96 right?

            • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              The book the list of predictions is from was written in 1999.

              He has written many books. He became famous because his earlier book was so accurate. Then Moore’s law died which caused all his predictions for technology after 2005 to be very off because the huge compounding effect of Moore’s law stopped.

              • Varyk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                Don’t know how you’re all so confused about this, but getting correct for a decade she’s then technology changing didn’t mean his prediction was incorrect.

                It means he was correct, and then technology changed again.

                Also, and this is going to blow your mind, Moore’s law?

                Not a prediction by kurzweil.

                Fairly irrelevant except as a touchstone example given to tech-illiterates to understand how fast computing power increases

                • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Most of his predictions he made in 1999 for 2009 were wrong. We have been through the list. You gave up rebuttals.

                  He didn’t foresee the change in speed technology improvements which is why his predictions failed.

                  Why would you think Moore’s law was Kurzweil’s idea? It’s called MOORE’S law.

                  He based his predictions on Moore. He referenced Moore’s law many times and extrapolated.

                  • Varyk
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    We’ve already established that that decade that you tried to debunk is over 80% correct.

                    So you’re off there.