site banner
Folamh3  1yr ago (slatestarcodex.com)   3492 thread views

Five More Years | Slate Star Codex

slatestarcodex.com

On this day five years ago, Scott made a list of graded predictions for how the next five years would pan out. How did he do?

He correctly predicted that Democrats would win the presidency in 2020. He correctly predicted that the UK would leave the EU and that no other country would vote to leave. He seemed under the impression that Ted Cruz would rise up to take Trump's mantle, but to my mind the only person in the Republican party who has a meaningful chance of opposing Trump is DeSantis. I think a lot of the technological predictions were too optimistic (specifically the bits about space travel and self-driving vehicles) but I don't work in tech and amn't really qualified to comment.

Near the end of the article, in a self-deprecating moment, he predicts with 80% confidence that "Whatever the most important trend of the next five years is, I totally miss it". To my mind, the most significant "trend" (or "event") of the last five years was Covid, and I think he actually did okay on this front: the second-last section of the article is a section on global existential risks:

Global existential risks will hopefully not be a big part of the 2018-2023 period. If they are, it will be because somebody did something incredibly stupid or awful with infectious diseases. Even a small scare with this will provoke a massive response, which will be implemented in a panic and with all the finesse of post-9/11 America determining airport security.

  1. Bioengineering project kills at least five people: 20%
  1. …at least five thousand people: 5%

Whether you think those two predictions cames to pass naturally depends where you sit on the lab leak hypothesis.

30
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Nice post but I protest the use of “amn’t”. Yes I see why it makes sense but I still hate coming across it. I acknowledge you may discard this opinion.

I was going to comment about what a strong move it was to write in common vernacular American English and including an ain't.

And to think my mom would chastise me for saying "ain't" as a child.

That's Hiberno-English for you, I say if we have to put up with "ain't" you should tolerate this.

Ain't and amn't ain't words and I amn't tolerating either.

I bet y'all'd've'd more respect for these words if you'd been raised right.

Alright, I respect that

All right

Haha, in my experience, most of us across the pond from you don't really say "ain't" unless it's in jest, or trying to match a specific style.

Contraction of "am not". What's the issue

Probably just because I'm is the usual contraction, this is a special case where you can drop the second I that would have gobbled up that am - I'm not positive on whether it's even grammatically correct.

fully written out the whole statement would be

I do not work in tech and I am not really qualified to comment.

Using both tricks at once to produce "amn't" just strikes me as strange, It implies the existence of a I'mn't which is truly an abomination.

Just guessing, but it's probably not grammatical in English because a lot of how English is spoken in Ireland is down to imported Irish grammer.

'I'm not' can be one word in Irish (níl mé/nílim), so 'amn't' probably sounded natural when English was becoming the dominant language.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats