You dramatically narrowed the context of my original comment in the hope you could find technical faults within it.
Your plaintive cries backfired magnificently, but why else would you keep trying so hard to misinterpret my original assertion and establish new guidelines if you didn’t think that refuting kurzweils majority-correct predictions was your role?
If you aren’t trying to find some way to refute kurzweil predictions, I have no idea what you’re doing.
Now I’m very curious to find out why you think you’re vainly banging your head against this wall you built.
In 1999 Kurzweil made predictions for 2009. I didn’t make the predictions.
Many of the predictions did not come true. Kurzweil’s 86% claim is false. Even you being a fan have agreed that 86% is wrong.
Non fans, which is how you need to approach things scientifically, claim 25%. Not being a fan doesn’t mean you aren’t being objective. I have already said Kurzweil’s earlier work was very accurate which is why he became famous.
The claim: kurzweil has “tons [this means “a lot”] of corect predictions”.
Your parameters:
Pointedly gnoring at least 100 of his predictions that critics agree carne true
incorrectly assuming he made all the 2009 predictions and wrote the book in a single day January 1, 1999, the day the book was published and printed
Arguing insignificant details of a minority of my personal offhand examples illustrating his predictions rather than addressing the actual predictions kurzweil makes
Your arguments, assumptions, misdirects and mistakes are not germane to the original correct statement that kurzweil has many correct predictions, and despite your efforts have proved yourself that even by your restrictive conditions, the majority of his predictions are true.
The statement "Kurzweil made tons of correct predictions is true.
You’ve been swinging and missing for days now, and you aren’t even on the field.
You can’t say he wrote the book before 1999 and then ignore that products are announced before they are released too.
You haven’t listed the 100 correct predictions from his 1999 book. I started with the 2009 predictions to give Kurzweil the best percentage possible. Longer predictions are less accurate.
No, I’m sure you’ll find one eventually.
Won’t really tip the overwhelming correct predictions kurzweil has, but why don’t you try again?
I didn’t make the assertion.
Fail.
Incorrect.
You asserted there was self driving road sensors technology installed by 2009.
It’s not my role to prove your mistakes.
That is definitely your self-imposed role.
You dramatically narrowed the context of my original comment in the hope you could find technical faults within it.
Your plaintive cries backfired magnificently, but why else would you keep trying so hard to misinterpret my original assertion and establish new guidelines if you didn’t think that refuting kurzweils majority-correct predictions was your role?
If you aren’t trying to find some way to refute kurzweil predictions, I have no idea what you’re doing.
Now I’m very curious to find out why you think you’re vainly banging your head against this wall you built.
In 1999 Kurzweil made predictions for 2009. I didn’t make the predictions.
Many of the predictions did not come true. Kurzweil’s 86% claim is false. Even you being a fan have agreed that 86% is wrong.
Non fans, which is how you need to approach things scientifically, claim 25%. Not being a fan doesn’t mean you aren’t being objective. I have already said Kurzweil’s earlier work was very accurate which is why he became famous.
Nope, you are straight-up lying.
The claim: kurzweil has “tons [this means “a lot”] of corect predictions”.
Your parameters:
Pointedly gnoring at least 100 of his predictions that critics agree carne true
incorrectly assuming he made all the 2009 predictions and wrote the book in a single day January 1, 1999, the day the book was published and printed
Arguing insignificant details of a minority of my personal offhand examples illustrating his predictions rather than addressing the actual predictions kurzweil makes
Your arguments, assumptions, misdirects and mistakes are not germane to the original correct statement that kurzweil has many correct predictions, and despite your efforts have proved yourself that even by your restrictive conditions, the majority of his predictions are true.
The statement "Kurzweil made tons of correct predictions is true.
You’ve been swinging and missing for days now, and you aren’t even on the field.
Don’t let me stop you, though.
You can’t say he wrote the book before 1999 and then ignore that products are announced before they are released too.
You haven’t listed the 100 correct predictions from his 1999 book. I started with the 2009 predictions to give Kurzweil the best percentage possible. Longer predictions are less accurate.
I’m not saying that.
You’re making more incorrect assumptions.