Clearly I arrive at this piece without the expectation of it defining the future-- I know better than to expect a pop tech piece to deliver to me a view of the future.

format: blatantly unoriginal

content: not persuasive, underdeveloped

effort: very low

value: very low

"The future of" is a very bold statement. The more cliche it becomes, the more I expect an author to actually outline, in a bold, cohesive, relatively comprehensive way, their theory.

Otherwise stop trying to tell people what the future will be-- it's a waste of time & attention.

Sure, the headline is catchy. The rest seems like the author was simply trying to reach a certain word count and claim their cheque.

--> "Future of" articles should read like a graduate academic paper-- give the future of technology the proper respect it deserves.

--> Or, they should be a policy paper.

Not a pop tech piece. Pop writers-- stop with the silliness-- stop appointing yourselves as definers of the future unless you expect folks like myself to come along and bring you back to reality.

____

Take this linked citation for example:

"Fast-forward to 2020 and the web isn’t getting any faster"

It's linked to an article by an individual who has an undergrad degree in psychology, a grad degree in IT, and is a design/UX-related employee. That's not the person I would go to for a technical, knowledgeable analysis of internet speed evolution.

But he could be right

Why does it annoy you so much?

I'm just sick of low effort articles where the author appoints themselves oracle/definer of the future.

It results in devolution of knowledge and a disrespect of the attention of intelligent people.

"he could be right" -- what a waste of a statement unless it is followed up by any premise. He could right... Ok, that's a claim. But based on what?

But you’re the one whose decided to dedicate so much attention to it. If it’s a prediction you don’t agree on just ignore it

The fact that it’s touched a nerve is more interesting to me

Wait a sec-- So someone can write an opinion, and that's ok-- but hey: no one critique it, ok?

But if I write an opinion-- that's not ok. But you-- you're allowed to critique my opinion.

_______

Let's apply your logic to your replies:

Well, jack_riminton, It seems like I've touched a nerve.

Why did you feel compelled to comment on my commentary, when you could have just ignored it?

Why are you critiquing my opinion if you're making the case that opinions should not be critiqued (and should simply be ignored if a person is in disagreement)?

______

Ohh.... Now I see. You're the one who posted the article.

Well, everything is very clear now: Simple bias.

______

Note: You never followed up when I questioned the premise of your claim "he could be right." It seems you're not interested in analyzing whether or not he is right. So what's the point of even posting this article?

Yet the purpose of my entire thread is to draw attention to the fact that him being right will not result from conclusions of a poorly contrived, low effort, pop-tech article.

Seems more like your nerve was touched. If you can't handle critique and do not want attention why are you posting your article here?

Firstly it’s not my article

Secondly I don’t even agree with it

It’s an interesting (and apparently provocative) prediction. I’ve enjoyed reading the responses

In college, when you write only "2" for an answer, the teacher doesn't say "hmmmm, he might be right", instead you get an F for not showing your work.

Really? Requiring you to "show your work" was rare in college for me, though typical in K-12. But not showing your work, if you're wrong, means no potential for partial credit in college (for instance, correct process but a lost sign might get you half credit versus no credit).

Unless of course, showing the work was the task (such as writing out a proof) versus a straight computation.

It’s not college though is it?

The failure with "he could be right" is here:

He could be right because... (these are just generic examples)

- He mentions renowned research by XYZ who has through years of painstaking research concluded (as cited in XYZ peer reviewed journal) that the basis of his argument is sound

- He's an expert in XYZ field, having worked at XYZ company which clearly demonstrates proficiency in XYZ subject material

- He clearly elucidates, citing several researchers and with clear, understandable diagrams how the phenomenon XYZ works

... Yet you make no effort to construct a premise to base your claim upon. Because no real premise exists: the article's author makes no effort to support his own claim about the future.