Ask HN: What are your predictions for 2023?
- Use lists instead of long paragraphs.
- One prediction per list item.
Historical:
2022: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29746236
2021: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25594068
2020: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21802596
2019: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18753859
2018: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16007988
2017: none?
2016: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10809767
2015: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8822723
2014: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6994370
2013: none?
2012: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3395201
815 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 317 ms ] thread- War against humans and AI commences. The AI content farms will destroy everything by reducing the signal to noise ratio so that all content is worthless regardless of who wrote it.
- Major cloud provider will screw something up and lose a lot of clients leading to a minor shift of corporates back to their own infrastructure.
What do you think would replace it? it seems impossible to manage a modern frontend app without it. For most cases, I think we don't need it though.
Where it exists, the web is probably the wrong solution for the problem.
Client side rendering is not strictly tied to single page apps. At a previous company we had rails render out a div containing all the data the page needed to mount the react component. No complex api design, no weird permission issues, etc.
It’s all about applying the correct solution to the problem and that isn’t the web if it involves react.
It doesn’t scale to lots of different things regularly.
Honestly, since the release of ChatGPT and Stable Diffusion this Us something I have been thinking about a lot. I we thought that what we saw in the last 10-15 years was an explosion in content available online, we cannot even imagine the quantity of content that will come. I am actually surprised this has not happened yet, although I think that we will see more and more articles with contributions by ChatGPT. Short to mid-term I hope that this will not lead to a decrease in content quality/lack of diversity. Long-term I think we will see mechanisms arise to distinguish human writing from AI generated content.
I am aware that this might sound pessimistic, I am actually excited to see where his things will evolve!
That already began this year. We may realize it in 2023 though.
Keep looping the same rhetoric over and over again, I'm sure it'll make a difference like it did when you people started doing it 50 yrs ago
I'm fairly certain the biggest threat that human industry poses is the chemical and polymer poisoning of the environment.
Rising temperatures are only of concerns in the view that planetary conditions should be perpetually optimal for human comfort, which is a pretentious and unrealistic though process
Sources would be helpful.
Most likely they wouldn't. You can find sources to back up almost any claim. Without the context they're not actually all that useful.
Y Combinator might not actually “go SBF” till mid year 2024 but they will start in 23… and out of sheer pettiness.
I think Putin will bet it all on full out war to conquer Ukraine in 2023. I wish I would be wrong.
Some infrastructure is not destroyed so easily and those are weapons not used on military targets.
If you mobilize millons:
A) there wouldn't be weapons, uniforms, rations, training for them.
B) Russian logistic is already their weak link. They would increase the need to ship the supplies.
C) who is going to keep the country working. Their economy world collapse
D) a lot of angry people with weapons is a recipe for the revolution
- At least 2 rounds of hard layoffs at Amazon, plus gentleman layoffs. No more Bezos billion dollar Prime Video projects. Shedding at least 10-12% of white collar work force to signal to the market they’re trying to prop the stock
- The economic hard landing
- Disney stock will fare much better under Iger
- Additional rate hikes from the Fed, at least 100bps but maybe 150
- Twitter won’t have the demise the media has been predicting. Musk probably continues making changes and shortly doing about face turn on them.
- Russia continues getting backed into a corner with Ukraine faring better and better thanks to US and Western support. Don’t know if it will happen but increasing probability Russia uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine. Doubt it comes down to WW3, we’ll try to immediately broker a peace deal, rather than getting ourselves (US) in a thermonuclear endgame with Russians
- Streaming recession with new shows put on hold
- More advances in AI like openai. Within big tech companies? Not so much.
- Big tech culture shift, cleaning house and going back to roots or at least trying to find that soul. Focus on bottom line metrics. Oat milk lattes, no so much.
Your unregretted attrition targets were 4%? Great! This year they’re 8%.
Mr. Managers, please produce this list by end of month.
Not likely. They would have nothing to gain from it. In their narrative, they are protecting the ukrainians ( which are actually russians, whether they want or not) from the fascist ukrainians. Nuking russian soil does not go together with this and Putin struggles already to not loose his base. And any military advantage this would gain, would be offset by massive upscaling of international aid. Also the russian army is in no shape anymore, to fight in fallout areas.
I expect a stalemate at the current frontlines, with not much changes in the long term.
People have been saying this shit for months, about how Russia will invade the rest of Europe, or drops nukes, or go crazy, and low and behold, they so far only did exactly what they said they were going to do, nothing more.
If you cant support the war given those facts, and need to make up stories about nukes and total conquest, then maybe war isnt good no matter which side youre on.
But I am impressed how one can take perhaps the most morally unambiguous conflict in the century so far and still make it an uncertainty.
If so, you mean that Gadaffi was a saint or something?
I raise you 1 bush iraq invasion and 1 obama Afghanistan quagmire and drone assassinations.
I'll throw in a trump TMZ secret bus recording too, just for kicks.
https://www.salon.com/2016/09/16/u-k-parliament-report-detai...
Of course, those of us who pay any attention whatsoever already knew that back in 2011.
Everything we are seeing and hearing from the people in the liberated areas seems to be working pretty well. I guess they bought into the narrative too.
I'd guess it's more the stories of the Russians raping and torturing them that is making it so obviously unambiguous that the Ukrainians are the good guys.
What did change, were the various threats towards the west and stated goals of what to achieve and back and forth with mobilisation and such.
Putins goal is clear, he wants a Eurasian Empire. But he is apparently not clear on how to achieve it.
(For example he would like Belarussia to join russia and join the war, but so far he was not able to enforce it )
It was variations of "the NATO is coming closer to us everyday and we have to fight back". If you know more and different, pls share.
Also, https://www.newsweek.com/russian-state-tv-boss-says-drown-uk...
I am pretty sure I have read it, but I don't remember anything close to what is in that TV show, which is indeed very disturbing, as it is state TV.
Russia annexed only parts of Ukraine so far. I can see them spinning a nuke over Kiev as defense of annexed territories.
It would also fit their narrative of "only using nukes in defense" as they would claim Russian territory is being attacked.
Their narrative is, that there is no ukrainian state. It is all russia. And Kiev is like a mothertown of russian culture.
So if extremly cornered and desperate, they might use a nuke to protect the crimea, but they could never nuke Kiev and live to tell the tale.
more in addition to what?
1. Russia starts "testing" nukes and a deal is brokered that pisses off both Ukraine and Russia but allows them both to claim "victory", save face and not start a thermonuclear war (this is Henry Kissinger's take); or
2. US loses its taste of financing and completely backing the Ukrainian war if a big recession hits here (hard to support Ukraine when we start "really" feeling a economic hit at home and politicians are on TV everyday talking about how much is being sent to Ukraine); or
3. Putin has a health/life issue and a Western-friendly replacement is installed in Russia (Putin is no Spring chicken!)
Some have forgotten that Putin was originally declared "a Western-friendly replacement". The world would have been a more peaceful place if we hadn't interfered in Russian politics to support Yeltsin and his chosen successor. Russia isn't the only nation in which our choice (??) of leader has led to "blowback", both for the victim nation and for most Americans. We should stop doing this.
USA probably should've chosen a stronger leader to support, but there wasn't much choice at that time. Or at least they should've helped to organize the transition of power to someone with a more credible past than that of a KGB officer.
Assuming (1) does not happen, there is likely little chance of the West seriously dropping its support for Ukraine. Maybe popular opinion of citizens will increasingly turn against the support, but the governments know very well what kind of message not supporting Ukraine sends to Russia.
And, Putin may well have a health/life issue, but if power passes to another person, it is likely to be someone even more hawkish than Putin. If you follow Russian opinion it seems Putin is seen as rather soft.
As for #3 a new person taking power can bend to local sentiment to keep up pressure but without the full commitment that Putin is making in Ukraine. This could play well locally (I suspect not a lot of Russians are happy to die for Ukraine) and be more "Western friendly" than a full-on war.
That seems like a bad precedent - nuclear blackmail and aggression works, you get rewarded with territory/concessions.
It is certainly a possibility, but in a way loss of credibility for US/West.
> US loses its taste of financing and completely backing the Ukrainian war if a big recession hits here (hard to support Ukraine when we start "really" feeling a economic hit at home and politicians are on TV everyday talking about how much is being sent to Ukraine); or
I think the monetary help might decrease, but the military help rather not. Sending old weapon stocks don't really produce any economic hit.
> Putin has a health/life issue and a Western-friendly replacement is installed in Russia (Putin is no Spring chicken!)
This is very unlikely to happen. Putin might be replaced one way or another, but the replacement won't be particularly friendly to the West. They might be slightly less (or more) antagonistic.
We do it all the time with North Korea.
>... - nuclear blackmail and aggression works, you get rewarded with territory/concessions.
I don't think the concession would be territory, more likely a treaty to block NATO membership for Ukraine (say no Ukraine NATO membership for 20 years, or something like that). Possibly also deny access to join the EU (even though that idea has heavy steam right now).
Some food help is not comparable.
> I don't think the concession would be territory
If Russia "loses" Crimea, then it's an undeniable Russian fiasco and Putin has no way to claim the war as a success.
It sounds like a weird scenario where Russia threatens to use nukes and then leaves satisfied with no NATO membership. (worth reminding that this war wasn't about NATO at all)
I think Crimea is gone to Russia for good. It is out of play. I am talking about the Northern regions of Ukraine. In fact, I think the whole invasion of the northern regions was to eventually play that into a DMZ. Which it might still end up becoming.
>It sounds like a weird scenario where Russia threatens to use nukes and then leaves satisfied with no NATO membership. (worth reminding that this war wasn't about NATO at all)
I mean, Putin claims is was. So from his perspective, he can call that a win, right? If you take him at his word (I know!) then all he wanted was to not have NATO military bases on Russian borders. From that perspective, everything he has done so far can make a sort of sense, including nuclear threats. So, again, from that perspective, if he gets what he is publicly asking for, why would he not tout it as a win?
The problem is that Putin would probably require recognition of Crimea as Russian, which would essentially underwrite his conquest and create a precedent for further conquests/annexations of further regions with Russian majorities/minorities.
> I am talking about the Northern regions of Ukraine.
Russia pulled out of northern regions back in March and now occupies the east and south. TBH I'm not sure how seriously I should take your opinion in light of such a basic mistake.
> So, again, from that perspective, if he gets what he is publicly asking for, why would he not tout it as a win?
He might get what he's publicly asking for, but he's not getting what he actually wants. If he's willing to credibly threaten nuke use, I'd rather expect he will insist on having what he in fact wants (some sort of further slicing up of Ukraine).
Then let me restate it, any land touching or close to Russia. I think that is what he wants. A DMZ type areas on Russian borders and no NATO bases anywhere close to Russia (ie. nowhere in Ukraine). I think you and I are talking past each other with using North and East. Really, NorthEast would be more appropriate for the areas I am talking about and of course the South.
>He might get what he's publicly asking for, but he's not getting what he actually wants. If he's willing to credibly threaten nuke use, I'd rather expect he will insist on having what he in fact wants (some sort of further slicing up of Ukraine).
Well, he's not going to get that I think. But he can likely negotiate parts of Ukraine into DMZ type areas that are effectively controlled/not-controlled by both Russia and Ukraine. Like maybe technically part of Ukraine, but needs Russian approval for certain things.
I believe this is the most he can get, and eventually if he is willing Ukraine will be forced to accept it.
So, my bet, a buffer on the borders and some sunsetted period where Ukraine cannot joing NATO (and possible EU).
Though, the US legislature is less likely to be able to navigate an economic disaster during this split as well.
Can this war go on for many years at current intensity? No. Can it be sustained past the end of 2023? Maybe, maybe not. Can it continue to "slow burn" - possibly.
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Stein#Stein's_Law
- AI will be critized more, but once developer jobs are threatened, only then concrete talks about doing something about will happen, none else will be cared enough to bother
- bigger zeitgeist shift from react to alternative SPA tools - it will enter the "enterprise" status, and will be relevant only due to things like MUI and ant design, and because "everyone else" is doing it, and devs being too afraid to suggest something else to their managers
What is the "something else" to React that you allude to? Vue? NextJS? Preact? Angular? Heh, PHP?
I've tried almost every big-name web app framework under the sun, React for 7 years, Angular an age ago for a year or two. Vue for a few months. Etc. In my experience, everythig either trends away from React (Vue, Angular, ...) and fails ("fail" -> never gains widespread adoption, zero job market, or just less popular than React, etc.), or sticks close to React (Preact, ...) and still fails because they have no real unique offering/large benefit over React, particularly in "enterprise" setting (which is what predominantly matters).
> and because "everyone else" is doing it
That's tautological. {thing} isn't popular for no reason. There is always some unique value-add that {thing} offers over {competing things}.
One of the life lessons I always remember for myself, particularly in software development: There better be a very good reason why you're betting against the mass. They are many and a good proportion of them smarter than you.
- People will start realizing Vue is just AngularJS all over again and will further converge towards React. There is already many signs of this in Vue3.
- Cryptocurrency regulation will be an ongoing discussion, and nothing will happen until SBF is in jail.
- Influencers who pumped and dumped crypto will be an ongoing target from the SEC. The recently Coffeezilla series on Logan Paul will likely be made an example of.
- We'll see more layoffs
- We will see more millennials quit the 9-5 to pursue some kind of passion. My guess is most will try to be an influencer.
- We'll start seeing more pirating again as people are being laid off and also due to the increase of streaming competitors.
- Meta will likely continue to lose money and their AR strategy will be disrupted by Apple.
Could be very useful as I'm a Vue fan and currently investing heavily careerwise.
When you learn React with JSX, you just need to know JS and everything else is pretty much predictable. Whereas in Vue, you have to learn JS and all the declaration markups of Vue (ex, v-bind, v-for, etc...); it's less predictable and someone who understands JS would still have to learn those things. Ex, if you knew how to write a loop in JS then you can write a loop to output React components. In Vue, you have to learn how to use v-for. When you start talking about filters and other things, it gets overly complicated in Vue (like AngularJS).
Two-way binding was a thing in early AngularJS days similar to Vue, and they both found out through iteration that it's not as great in practice as in theory. I believe Vue3 is only one-way binding now? With the composition API, you're encouraged to use defineEmits as the callback mechanism to parent components similar to React's paradigm. When React came out, it was all one-way binding and it made sense and worked well.
Vue's composition API with the defineProps and defineEmits creates a similar component composition structure to React's effect hooks. However, the general structure of the component still requires Vue syntax (ex, <template>, <script setup>, etc...). In React, you just write a JS function and return what you expect to render.
Vue is also a bit too magical in how their props work especially when you are using <script setup>. It's not obvious that props can be inherited unless you read the documentation. In React, it's just JavaScript and you get the props through the function arguments.
I think the common "strengths" of Vue are often applicable to all frontend frameworks, because it's all JavaScript at the end of the day. This is all just my opinion though.
Vue3 also has `FunctionalComponent` now for the cases where you really want a simple component from a function – and again props work beautifully with Typescript.
In contrast, I'm finding integrating Typescript with the largely-JS React codebase I work with on the day job to be a bit nightmarish – the amount of prop destructuring which seems to happen in every single component makes typing their signatures a repetitive, tedious affair (largely due to TS's handling of destructured arguments). I'm not sure how universal this style is in modern React but I do seem to come across it pretty frequently. To be fair, React's simplicity does make it eminently typeable, this is more of a code-stylistic issue.
All that said, appreciated reading your take on the two frameworks – it's extremely difficult to remain objective about the tools we use day in and out and these sorts of comparisons absolutely help. We all want to be moving towards systems we enjoy building with and will continue enjoying for decades - I for one am infinitely grateful to React and its community for bringing JSX/TSX into the world (which I'm sure is still a somewhat controversial stance in 2022- but for me personally, after a 6 or so months with it, the firsthand experience told me all I needed to know). Happy xmas to you!
Personally I do like the non-destructured `props.abc` throughout component code, really helps clarify at a glance where something is coming from, whether it's locally or externally defined, etc. Code style is an endless exercise in compromises/opinions though, even _with_ tools like eslint and prettier.
This kind of reinforces my point about having to learn Vue. I personally think it's just unnecessarily building more API to memorize on top of JavaScript.
> In contrast, I'm finding integrating Typescript with the largely-JS React codebase I work with on the day job to be a bit nightmarish – the amount of prop destructuring which seems to happen in every single component makes typing their signatures a repetitive, tedious affair (largely due to TS's handling of destructured arguments).
To be fair, I find issues with this with TypeScript everything. Moreover, I think that is the natural progression for all typed systems or languages. I honestly prefer JS without TypeScript. I may use TypeScript some times for certain areas like having enums.
> All that said, appreciated reading your take on the two frameworks
I'm happy to hear that!
Merry Christmas to you too!
There is certainly more surface-area to learn about than React, though my feeling is that hooks have evened that equation quite a bit (one React component class vs. a whole quirky hooks toolkit; and admittedly Vue has forms of both as well). I'd argue both are far less to learn than Angular – I've had a tiny bit of experience there and recall feeling continually lost. I also think there are tradeoffs that justify extra bits of learning, but that's a subjective matter that (imo) can only be informed through some amount of firsthand experience building something complex with the frameworks.
Typescript is not everyone's cup of tea! Tradeoffs abound there – personally while I agree it can be cumbersome, I have trouble going back at this point (though I will when necessary). Interesting that you enjoy enums – I do as well but have found a distaste for them in the TS community which saddens me.
we will see a trend away from React Hooks to something that feels less magical, but is also different from the old way of using class components.
Kylie isn't a billionaire because she's an "influencer" - she's a billionaire because she runs a traditional business.
Just like Meta isn't a "tech" company - it's a traditional media / advertising company with a slightly different model.
Tldr:- Influencers are correlated to the markets. Market valuations fall, Influencers get hurt.
And I tend to agree. People bought into Logan Pauls scam because they trusted him, the same way that people will buy a product because they trust the spokesperson.
I'm a huge Kate Mulgrew fan even as I don't think Janeway was a great captain. I remember coming across "The Principle" on Amazon, seeing her on it, and purchasing it. I didn't get very far into it before I stopped it and went googling and it turns out she was tricked and didn't fully realize what she was narrating. I think she sued them, but I could be wrong.
You can argue that the scale is different, and you may be right, but I do think the other poster is correct that they've existed for a very long time and many people use them as a proxy for trust when making decisions.
But where do influencers get their money? Endorsements aka advertisements and straight from subscribers. We may already be seeing a contraction of the advertisers from online streaming so this probably has shorter legs than required to impact the 9-5 hegemony.
Otherwise people who left the labor market probably have their finances tied to the stock market and interest rates - whether they realize it or not. The Fed has stated they will raise rates until the labor market moves back towards employers. (They are not a populist group, btw.) They absolutely think raising rates will push people out of retirement regardless of age.
Personally, I think it’s far past time for the labor market to correct towards the supply side than the demand side. Ie workers and worker needs/wants. This did happen after the 1918 Pandemic. But of course that era didn’t have quite the high powered technocratic class pushing things toward the corporates away from market equilibrium. (Economic theory does generally warn against artificial conditions thwarting equilibrium of supply/demand. The hell of rent caps in NYC is an example.)
In short, make jobs more desirable for people to work or see an inefficient outcome until the market does. Let the market do its thing at least, or (better) reinforce workers rights-as the market has already pushed the equilibrium too far towards labor demand and away from supply.
I think this looks like creative solutions around hours/scheduling, workplace conditions, and moving away from toxic environments like hire to fire, “quiet promotions”, or under scheduling people to avoid paying benefits.
1. Assume global warming is happening.
2. Assume that global warming is going to start causing problems for humans.
Humans will start using technology to deal with these problems. And they'll be successful. This is going to have the harmful effect of making global warming worse before humans truly start trying to solve the root issue (because they can continue to live without being affected by it).
There are two lines here. Passing the first line starts affecting humans, and passing the second line ends in catastrophe (humans can no longer exist on earth).
In a well functioning system, as we pass the first line, humans will start taking notice and we will _naturally_ start trying to avoid the second line. The space between these two lines is our buffer.
As we use technology to keep the warming from affecting us, we will push the first line back while avoiding any true behavior changes that would ultimately keep us from the second line. This decreases our buffer and increases the danger. At some point the technology will either fail or completely remove the second line (one can imagine building a bubble around the earth ala space balls so we can very explicitly regulate the environment).
To use technology in this manner is to invite catastrophe and to gamble that technology will never fail us. It may, or it may not.
---
This is how I feel about "the market". In theory, the market should naturally push towards an equilibrium and correct so as to avoid true disaster. Humans are involved, technology is involved, causing the market to be unnatural and affected by forces outside of that market. In the case of markets, catastrophe isn't the extinction of all human life, but it IS untold horrors. People are currently using technology to force the market to be what they want. This will break at some point.
This is why the market needs to be regulated, to control how much of an effect both humans and technology have on it. Not because the market will never self-correct, but because of the untold pain when it does.
And I understand the argument against it, this is not about controlling the market, it's about _PROTECTING_ the market from undue influence by those with more power than others. The alternative to too much regulation isn't "no regulation", it's "less regulation". Of course, you also have the classic problem of "who watches the watchers" and there's no good answer for solving THAT problem, but I don't think the right answer is "fuck it, just let it play out".
1, The Sunak Government will further undo the banking ring-fencing rules in England so large banks can play with British pension funds. Down the line (6-10 years), there will be a massive pension crisis in England.
2, The USA will start delivering ATACM missiles to Ukraine (this may prompt Russia to make an example: a nuclear detonation over the black sea or some Ukraine field as an attempt to arm wrestle concessions out of the USA and EU by Russia)
3, Musk will break up twitter and spin off the valuable parts (my least likely prediction, he won't do away with the sunk cost fallacy).
4, one massive strike in France ala 2018 Gilets Jaunes
5, Exchange of fire between Iran and the KSA over some tankers
6, the USA suffers a right wing terrorist attack against a gay pride event in June with 30+ deaths
The issue is that the right wing has steered very hard into anti-gay rhetoric in the last couple of cycles which convinces the sort of deranged people who commit mass hate attacks that they are doing something for a cause.
Combine that with the fetishization and availability of military style weapons and it’s pretty easy for a lone miscreant to kill a lot of people fast.
Oooh, come oooooon... There probably hasn't ever been a single year _without_ something resembling a "massive strike" in France. And we have yet-another-pension-reform coming up.
It's like predicting there will be a massive barbecue in Texas :P
Burned vehicles, a few hands lost to a police grenade, maybe a death or two.
Sure it's a low hanging fruit, but the French executive power has been bypassing parliament with 49.3 rulings for the past year to get unpopular laws and welfare undoings through. Something's gotta break.
And even if they did not have to bypass parliament, there would be strike (source : the last 50 years or so ?)
Can't really remember one for this year. Then again, there are still five more days to.
One not massive in numbers, but massive as impact was concerned: oil refineries, only 2 months ago.
It impacted the whole country for weeks. As the Gilets Jaunes happening didn't even involve any strike, I guess this one qualifies even better.
What is going on at Twitter is the Musk modus operandi and he is almost certainly loving his time there right now. He put it all on the line at PayPal, Tesla and now Twitter. It's just extremely public this time. You can say he failed plenty and Twitter is probably just going to turn into one of those. But the user engagement right now is higher than ever and there is no reason it can not be turned into a profitable business. Twitter crashing and burning is wishful thinking more than reality.
Certainly not. He loves the attention and power he has gained, but he certainly does not love the bad numbers (Tesla stock also went DOWN as well) and that the quite meaningless poll whether he should step down, was not in his favor.
He did not comment on that one with "Vox Populi Vox Dei".
Musk was correctly anticipating a major down turn in the economy for 2022. He was saying this at the end of 2021. Of course Tesla went down, everything else did as well. This is not a surprise. Fun fact he and Thiel also correctly anticipated the dotcom crash before it happened and pushed for the last round of PayPal funding to get done quickly at the peak as they expected it to be the last opportunity.
Twitters poor financials were known going in.
I think he would need to be pretty dumb to be surprised or offended by the result of the poll. Being CEO or not is meaningless when it is a private company and he owns the place. His word is law no matter the CEO.
The poll was just for show, and it was in his favour. The plan was always for him to be interim CEO, with reports going back throughout this year all the way to May about this. He keeps doing this – putting up polls where he’s already made the decision and knows the vote will just confirm it. Why do people keep falling for it?
Except that he did comment those other staged polls with "Vox Populi Vox Dei" pretty much right away and put it into action vs. not commenting and no action on this one.
And he said many things, also that there will be no CEO on Twitter at all. But yes, he never intended to remain CEO - otherwise he would have never did the poll in the first place, but he definitely has no clear plan, he drives on sight. (And yes, in either case, he still owns Twitter.)
And "stepping down" translates to asking whether he was running Twitter well. And the people said "no".
Why would he want that?
What would be the benefit, if it was his plan, to make people wanting him go? You really think there is a great plan behind it?
The only vague thing might be to create an image of an reasonable emperor who listen to the people, even if it is unpleasant. But so far he does not really show the grandeur fitting that role.
My bet is that he was hoping the poll were overwhelmingly for him staying so that he can then eventually announce how “he must reluctantly step down and that he knows how everyone is disappointed by this terrible turn of events”.
Are you sure you’re not thinking of the relaxation of ring fencing between investment banks and retail banks? That I know is more of a possibility and not related to pensions.
The relaxation for banks under a certain amount of AuM is already in the pipe -- see Lyons' recent interview with Bloomberg. I'm expecting him to push for a larger increase of the ceiling amount this year, and get it. That's why I said "further undo."
Maybe the ring-fencing will be fully removed but that won't happen this year.
I like how you specify the month and the number of deaths to make it a bit more of a challenge.
While un my opinion there is a downwards trend since a few years, I would agree that there were quite a few years better than 2022 if the timeframe of a few decades is looked at, so many that is makes it difficult for 2022 to be at or above average.
JWST studies will begin pouring out results as the first one year lockup periods expire. There absolutely will be shocking results. (This being a prediction thread after all.)
Covid may finally recede into less and less of a concern. But only after China reaches a maximal level of infection and recovery. I read a figure somewhere they may have already had north of 250 million cases.
Personally, I’m hoping the world steps back from the brink of war. Maybe the violence and failure of Russian atrocities will inoculate the world from a larger war. Or something way worse is yet to come.
Really hoping at lease one solid state battery begins mass production. (I want an Ioniq 6.)
Edit: the larger dawning of the analysis from a recent Fed report by the market.: https://www.federalreserve.gov//econres/notes/feds-notes/the...
What scale of shocking are you predicting? Signs of extra terrestrial spaceship trails across the sky, or estimates of dark matter quantity adjusted by 1%?
Edit-You can see where JWST was pointed and when at the following. It goes one week at a time. The data is either immediately publicly available or withheld for one year for the requesting scientists. https://www.stsci.edu/jwst/science-execution/observing-sched...
If it isn’t clear I’m a total JWST fanboy then let me just say it. I am an absolute JWST fanboy. I think telescopes have the best potential for widening fields like physics, chemistry, and more. This because ever increasing probes of QM require either astronomically large particle accelerators or unknown ways of accelerating particles. Further, the universe is absolutely huge and capable of much greater variety than anything we can engineer. So sitting back and taking notes is appropriate.
- Several whistleblowers, like Eric Davis, will come forward with information about UAP secret programs. However, thanks to plausible deniability, the UAP issue will remain far from being disclosed.
- The economy will appear to be doing better until a major crash in the second half of the year. This will get the indexes below pre-covid levels by quite a substantial amount. Crypto will be decimated again while PM-s thrive.
Mostly it’s just that many of us, Ukrainians included (I speak from personal experience - I have Ukrainian close relatives), closed our eyes to Russia actually pulling the trigger. It is just unthinkably stupid and so, so disgusting.
That said, this comment was spot on, and not just on Russia: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29746942
* Nivenkos predicted that Omicron would create natural immunity to COVID, but I think alkonaut's prediction was more nuanced/accurate: that organized responses end and there are new variants that we live with (although there has been a greater level of immune escape than expected, nothing has run away... so far). Note, that while down dramatically from the peak we are at a steady state for most of the year where 500 people in the US (and about the same number in the EU) die every day from COVID [1], just no one cares now.
* alkonaut's Russia prediction correctly covers Russian annexation of Eastern Ukraine, intense conflict w/ many more Russian casualties than expected, the SWIFT and petroleum price responses and the huge role that UAVs would play in the conflict. What he missed was actually just how well Ukraine would do (no Russian victory in sight) and how successful/effective Ukraine's infowar/strategic game would be. That, the scale of Russian losses, and the huge amount of OSINT has prevented Russia from any of the narrative control people might have expected.
* Republicans by all accounts should have curb-stomped Dems during the mid-terms, but Roe v Wade ended up being a big own-goal that prevented that.
* alkonaut's prediction that "Boris Johnson is ousted as prime minster. He is replaced by a either a man of some charisma or a woman without charisma, as that is the requirement" was also quite insightful.
[1] https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-chart/?areas=eur&areas=usa&are...
The western military intelligence communities were aware and had warned about Russian mobilization for months. They were downplayed only by far-right voices in the west that were invested in building up Putin as an effective authoritarian against the slow-moving "woke" bureaucrats of the EU and the US Democrats.
- Russia won't start any overt military operations in Donbass, let alone Ukraine proper.
I'm sad this guy got both his predictions wrong.
- next year will be a mixture of things continuing to happen as before, and completely unexpexted events (that will actually play out similarly than previous events, but from a while ago.)
- There will be strikes in France,
- coups in south America and / or Africa,
- very few plane crashes, an awful lot of car accidents
- and maybe a rocket malfunction.
- War in Russia will go on. (Apparently, half of all wars last more than a year :/ [1])
- A next wave from Belarus is almost a sure thing. Not sure why it would work better than last one.
- I don't know where it would make sense military wise for Russia to drop a tactical nuke. They will do if they find out.
- The first power cut in a major European country will change the game as far as public support goes.
- But gouvernements don't need public support to send weapons, they need industrial capability, so they will keep doing it.
- Also, famous people will die in January / February. (because babyboom + life expectancy + winter)
- Summer will be on average hotter than summers from the last decade.
- Except during my holidays, where it will rain cats and dogs.
- Finally, the year will end in December (high probability, high confidence)
[1] https://www.csis.org/analysis/how-does-it-end-what-past-wars...
There is no war in Russia. Russia is at war, but that war is happening in a country called Ukraine.
:facepalm:
(Although, technically, some parts of Ukraine are claimed by Russia, so... No ? Ok, no. Sorry.)
Another argument is that conscription leads to unrest, and also sowing doubt amongst the leadership is a kind of war.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/dec/05/strikes-deep-i...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29746942
I would like to know what he is predicting for 2023.
"Red tsunami in 2022 mid-terms, Democrats trounced in both the House and Senate. Biden becomes a lame duck." "Russia invades Ukraine with no push back." Hahahahahaha!
"- Elon says something so incredibly stupid that this time it affects his company's performance." Well, this one finally came true. Maybe.
Apple makes major gains in laptop market share.
Linux gaming continues to improve slowly.
Who, if anyone, tends to make specific predictions down to the months timeframe and has a good track record?
Many in this thread so far are vague - how would you tell if “West tires of war in Ukraine” happened or didn’t? If “people see Vue is Angular again” happened or didn’t in 2033? If “climate change worsens” happens? “Shor’s algorithm will factor 35” is a very specific one, much better.
What specific prediction like that is the most extreme one that you feel confident making?
Last years hd a few saying Russia would invade Ukraine (and as many saying it wouldn’t), but of those they thought Ukraine would fold in days and have no support from the west.
Nobody expected Ukraine to successfully repel the invasion.
In 2020 predictions I don’t see any reference to pandemics or other Heath based issues - and covid was already beginning with several cases having being confirmed.
Makes you wonder what minor thing could be known already and about to change the world but completely invisible to us now.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateEnd=1577750400&dateRange=custom&...
I was not on HN prior to covid. The early news I read was likely the plague scare[0], but I definitely read the reuters article[1] when it came out which prompted me to talk to my coworkers about it. I was not sounding any alarms though, more like "check this out..." in the lunchroom.
[0]https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/16/china-bubonic-plague-ou...
[1]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-pneumonia/ch...