If you read the text description you might get the impression of what something looks like without knowing what it really is. Eye blocking goggles are completely different than transparent eye glasses.
It’s functionally the same as a 1989 NASA VIEW system. The non transparent goggles are clearly visible in the video you linked. Under no circumstances would anyone confuse them for eye glasses.
I personally used ar glasses with greyed lenses, a projected miniature computer screen and a backpack just like those, so you won’t be convincing me any time soon that ar tech didn’t exist in the 2000s.
You want to change your definition further to secure a half point I’ve already given you since arc tech was actually but wasn’t mainstream, you go for it.
Dither all you like, it’s not changing the overall score of his predictions being largely correct.
Shoot, doesn’t even affect how overwhelmingly correct the predictions are on your “special rules” with the wrong dates list.
It either looks like eyeglasses https://www.meta.com/smart-glasses like Kurzweil predicted or it already existed before 1999 if you are referring to clumsy goggles like I linked above
I can tell you’re serious, that’s why it’s such a bummer you can’t make any headway.
You seem so earnest but have all these assumptions you keep tripping over that facilitate you shooting yourself in the foot.
You constantly have to revise and change your “quotes”, guidelines and arguments to eke out over more flailing attempts where you swear, you swear, this one example will really shiw that kurzweil was in fact not one hundred percent correct on every prediction(which nobody is trying to prove).
You want to change your criteria further to secure a half point I’ve already given you hair a dozen comments ago since AR was available but wasn’t mainstream, you go for it.
Dither all you like, it’s not changing the overall score of kurzweil predictions being largely correct.
Shoot, doesn’t even affect how overwhelmingly correct the predictions are on your “special rules” with the wrong dates list.
Definitely doesn’t affect my original argument that kurzweil was correct about “tons of his predictions”.
I had no idea kurzweil was over 80% correct though even narrowly as you’re interpreting them, so thanks.
You showed ridiculous goggles that looked like the 1989 NASA as an example of eyeglasses.
Kurzweil was very clear when he said eyeglasses and contact lenses. He was already aware of bulky ar goggles. He didn’t mean that 5 years after his prediction, someone would show goggles that he already knew existed.
I’m actually serious, are you visually impaired?
If you read the text description you might get the impression of what something looks like without knowing what it really is. Eye blocking goggles are completely different than transparent eye glasses.
It’s functionally the same as a 1989 NASA VIEW system. The non transparent goggles are clearly visible in the video you linked. Under no circumstances would anyone confuse them for eye glasses.
I personally used ar glasses with greyed lenses, a projected miniature computer screen and a backpack just like those, so you won’t be convincing me any time soon that ar tech didn’t exist in the 2000s.
You want to change your definition further to secure a half point I’ve already given you since arc tech was actually but wasn’t mainstream, you go for it.
Dither all you like, it’s not changing the overall score of his predictions being largely correct.
Shoot, doesn’t even affect how overwhelmingly correct the predictions are on your “special rules” with the wrong dates list.
There were AR glasses in 1995.
https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/virtual-i-o-i-glasses-personal-3d-viewer-head-mounted-display/4wHrXHZrWs9ZBA?hl=en
It either looks like eyeglasses https://www.meta.com/smart-glasses like Kurzweil predicted or it already existed before 1999 if you are referring to clumsy goggles like I linked above
You haven’t shown eye glasses with ar by 2009.
I can tell you’re serious, that’s why it’s such a bummer you can’t make any headway.
You seem so earnest but have all these assumptions you keep tripping over that facilitate you shooting yourself in the foot.
You constantly have to revise and change your “quotes”, guidelines and arguments to eke out over more flailing attempts where you swear, you swear, this one example will really shiw that kurzweil was in fact not one hundred percent correct on every prediction(which nobody is trying to prove).
You want to change your criteria further to secure a half point I’ve already given you hair a dozen comments ago since AR was available but wasn’t mainstream, you go for it.
Dither all you like, it’s not changing the overall score of kurzweil predictions being largely correct.
Shoot, doesn’t even affect how overwhelmingly correct the predictions are on your “special rules” with the wrong dates list.
Definitely doesn’t affect my original argument that kurzweil was correct about “tons of his predictions”.
I had no idea kurzweil was over 80% correct though even narrowly as you’re interpreting them, so thanks.
Not a rebuttal.
Incorrect
1989 goggles are not the “eyeglasses and contact lenses” he predicted in 1999 that would exist in 2009.
Stop lying.
Nobody said they were except you.
You know, making things up
You showed ridiculous goggles that looked like the 1989 NASA as an example of eyeglasses.
Kurzweil was very clear when he said eyeglasses and contact lenses. He was already aware of bulky ar goggles. He didn’t mean that 5 years after his prediction, someone would show goggles that he already knew existed.
I gave you this half point two days ago…was that your first gold star?
You seem really hung up on it.
What was the half that you thought was correct?