@[email protected] to [email protected] • 3 months agoWe regret to inform you that Ray Kurzweil is back on his bullshitwww.theguardian.comexternal-linkmessage-square354fedilinkarrow-up174arrow-down10
arrow-up174arrow-down1external-linkWe regret to inform you that Ray Kurzweil is back on his bullshitwww.theguardian.com@[email protected] to [email protected] • 3 months agomessage-square354fedilink
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish1•3 months agoYou’re incorrect again. I said at least a hundred predictions on top of the 40 odd you want to talk about. You aren’t able to retain more than the most immediately recent comment. This is your own burden and nobody else’s.
minus-square@Blue_MorpholinkEnglish1•3 months ago iII said at least a hundred predictions on top of the 40 odd you want to talk about. Stop lying. It’s boring. List your 100 with exact sources.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish1•3 months agoI get it, you’re bummed you can’t convince anyone and you’ve lost the argument. I’m pretty happy about it, though, so I’ll leave you to do your own digging. You need to learn one day.
minus-square@Blue_MorpholinkEnglish1•3 months agoYou: "Pointedly ignoring his 100 predictions that came true " Me: list them. You: that’s not what I meant. Stop lying.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish1•3 months agoAh, nagging up what I said because you’re bitter. Satisfying.
minus-square@Blue_MorpholinkEnglish1•3 months agoYou can’t stand that I’m holding your lies to your face. You said 100. Show 100.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish1•3 months agoGo for it. Clearly you live in your own little worried
minus-square@Blue_MorpholinkEnglish1•3 months agoGo for what? You said there were 100 correct predictions. When I asked you to show them you implied it was hyperbole. Then you repeated it. Show the list of 100 or admit it was a lie. I provided a list from his 1999 book of predictions for 2009. We argued the results. It was 25% accurate just like a 3rd party reporter concluded. If you want to claim his accuracy is better, you need a new list with sources.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish1•3 months agoI admit what you said(and are saying) was based on lies and ignorance.
You’re incorrect again.
I said at least a hundred predictions on top of the 40 odd you want to talk about.
You aren’t able to retain more than the most immediately recent comment.
This is your own burden and nobody else’s.
Stop lying. It’s boring.
List your 100 with exact sources.
I get it, you’re bummed you can’t convince anyone and you’ve lost the argument.
I’m pretty happy about it, though, so I’ll leave you to do your own digging.
You need to learn one day.
You: "Pointedly ignoring his 100 predictions that came true "
Me: list them.
You: that’s not what I meant.
Stop lying.
Ah, nagging up what I said because you’re bitter.
Satisfying.
You can’t stand that I’m holding your lies to your face. You said 100. Show 100.
Go for it.
Clearly you live in your own little worried
Go for what? You said there were 100 correct predictions. When I asked you to show them you implied it was hyperbole. Then you repeated it.
Show the list of 100 or admit it was a lie.
I provided a list from his 1999 book of predictions for 2009. We argued the results. It was 25% accurate just like a 3rd party reporter concluded.
If you want to claim his accuracy is better, you need a new list with sources.
I admit what you said(and are saying) was based on lies and ignorance.