Ten predictions (2004)
sites.google.com
Ten predictions (2004)
1–10 of 324 posts
Re: Ten predictions (2004)
#2Wow some of them are really spot on!
Re: Ten predictions (2004)
#3"Important Note: the predictions themselves don't matter! Most of them are probably wrong. The point of the exercise is the exercise itself, not in what results. You should try this experiment yourself — it may show you things you're thinking that you weren't really aware of. And other people might find it interesting reading, even if there are factual errors or whatever"
Re: Ten predictions (2004)
#4This really is an impressive display of foresight. It appears that all the reading Steve mentioned doing paid off. The act of discussing his predictions here on HN is foretold in prediction #6. And those that were off, were still pretty warm.
Re: Ten predictions (2004)
#5This really is an impressive display of foresight. It appears that all the reading Steve mentioned doing paid off. The act of discussing his predictions here on HN is foretold in prediction #6. And those that were off, were still pretty warm.
Whoever solves this — i.e. whoever creates AOL for real people, or whatever the heck this thing turns out to be — is going to be really, really rich.
Re: Ten predictions (2004)
#6This really is an impressive display of foresight. It appears that all the reading Steve mentioned doing paid off. The act of discussing his predictions here on HN is foretold in prediction #6. And those that were off, were still pretty warm.
I'm similarly impressed. While we can argue about the specificity of several predictions, I can say that I would not have predicted any of them in 2004 other than Programmers Will Be Average and We Will Have A New Online Meeting Place.
Re: Ten predictions (2004)
#7Impressive.
Re: Ten predictions (2004)
#8This really is an impressive display of foresight. It appears that all the reading Steve mentioned doing paid off. The act of discussing his predictions here on HN is foretold in prediction #6. And those that were off, were still pretty warm.
That really stood out for me too. Even more so, the fact Paul Graham is referred to in the prediction just before. PG forms the conclusion of Steve's lisp prediction and also founded a type of community mentioned in the prediction after it.
Re: Ten predictions (2004)
#9Prediction #3 is the only one which I can't see being interpreted as being reasonably accurate. Anybody care to explain why it might be correct?
Re: Ten predictions (2004)
#10This really is an impressive display of foresight. It appears that all the reading Steve mentioned doing paid off. The act of discussing his predictions here on HN is foretold in prediction #6. And those that were off, were still pretty warm.
When reading the article, I had the feeling that prediction #6 was actually FaceBook.