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

      You couuuuld learn to scroll instead

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

          Everyone else accepted the prior proof, your the only one still pretending not to understand and making up stories to avoid the report that you were incorrect.

          Kurzweil was accurate in most of his predictions.

          Thanks for helping prove that

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

            So your past claim you replied to them was a lie.

            You have dropped from entertaining troll to boring liar.

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

              Nope, my original comment, the original ten predictions requested, and the subsequent requested proofs within your narrowed, out of context parameters were correct.

              You’re a sore loser.

              You making things up isn’t going to get any more convincing with time or repetition.

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

                I didn’t address the ten.

                I gave a list from the Kurzweil’s 1999 book. I provided a sourced 3rd party review. I then listed them out where you failed to defend your position.

                No self driving cars. No virtual personalities. No AR built into eyeglasses and contact lenses. No voice as the primary input for computers. No computers without any mechanical parts.

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

                  Yes, you changed the goalposts, ignored most of his predictions, used the wrong years, and although you were ignorant if the relevant technology, claimed the tech never existed and argued against my examples rather than the predictions by kurzweil.

                  Despite that, you were unable to refute his predictions.

                  It’s pretty great.