Talk:2010s

Mayan Calendar

Should be mentioned that 2012 is the end of the Mayan Calendar. Lone wolf025 02:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

apocolypse?

should something be mentioned about the apocolypse and 2012? --MunchableSandwich 00:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

People have been the end of the world since the begginning of time. The end of the world is probably not going to happen this decade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.139.248 (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

music

Where do these predictions about music come from? Why would top 40 music in the UK sound anything like music ten years from now? Is there any evidence for this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jakek101 (talk • contribs).

Not that I know of. I've removed it—in case anyone gets a source for them, here they are:

Also in the 2010's, fashion and music trends might be influenced by a certain nostalgia of the 1990's (which will have started 20 years earlier) comparable to the 90s' infatuation with 70's culture and in turn the 70's infatuation with 50's culture. Rap music will still be the mainstream genre, along with rock and roll, and ethnic music will gradually die.

The pop music of the early 2010s it is going to resemble the sound of the current Top 40 music in the United Kingdom. The chord structure will be less choppy, and there is going to have a quintessinal movement in dance/electronica. Also, the instrumentation will be less more acoustic, and the synthesizer will be more of a background touch to the music instead of the main instrument in the 1980s up to the 2000s.

Fashion will become less grungy and less trashy, but there is a chance of a second grunge movement.

--zenohockey 04:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I am an inclusionist, but what was written there is absolute POV trash, violating WP:NOR and WP:CRYSTAL alone.--HisSpaceResearch 21:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Looks POV on the Hubbert stuff/ hydrocarbon reserves to me? I also do not know what academic research is referred to but believe these statements to be very inaccurate: anyone defend them? --(talk)BozMo 12:04, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

I think it's pretty much universally accepted that the oil peak will be sometime in the 2010's...National Geographic just recently had an article about it, and you can't mess with National Geographic... bob rulz 10:57, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

I've gone through and changed "will be called" to "is expected to be called" and added "twenty"-less versions because: (1) we don't know what will happen to English in the future, and (2) it's kind of 20th-century-ist to assume future generations will add "twenty-" to decade names.

---

The sentence Some ancient astromoners predicted that in 2012 a catastrophic event would happen somewhere in space (perhaps on earth) is too fluffy, just who are these Some ancient astromoners?

More likely they mean philosophers.

---

"Wireless technology, which first emerged in the 1980s with the cell phone, likely will expand to the extent that by the end of the decade power outlets may become largely obsolete."

Um? 1. Wireless tech is often about wireless networking, not power. 2. What, pray tell, will we charge our devices and batteries from? Has any commercial technology proposed to replace the wall-outlet power system?

Tesla coils! Giant towers spewing lighting! Woo-hoo! And flying cars! Teleporters! Money will be free! And we'll all get brain implants that allow us to predict the future! Which we can't do now. Sadly, it's nonsense. --A D Monroe III 01:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed it. It should only return when someone can explain how wireless technology can replace outlets, for now it's nonsense. - Pyro19 03:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Supernatural predictions

Are there any sources for all these calamitous predictions—which, of course, have been made innumerable times already—in the last section? I'm removing them until there are. --zenohockey 06:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"Nineteen-teens"?

I've removed the following:

...the 1910 decade has been popularly referred to as the nineteen-teens.

Personally, I've never heard it referred to as anything but the nineteen-tens, and Google gives very few results for either (about 600-400, favoring -"tens"). I'm currently undecided as to whether the sentence should be left out entirely, and if not, whether the above portion should refer to both -teens and -tens. --zenohockey 18:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Computing

The implications of an end to moores law are very important and its good theyve been mentioned here, I dont think many people have realised this problem which is getting rather close now in terms of computing power. I've added a bit about fears that an end to computor growth could be damaging to the world economy as technology like computors, mobile phones , ipods would be unable to progress in decreasing size/ cost/ power. I think there is some research going on to try to extend this limit, but even if any attempts work, this would probably only extend the power by a factor. There was a sentence about quantum computing which ive made a bit less definite:- Even if we have breakthroughs in quantum computing by then it doesn't mean that this will be generally useful, only certain kinds of problems are theoretically solved faster on a quantum computor. I feel that the sentence could give the impression that quantum computing is a replacement for standard computing.

---

"conventional CPUs are expected to reach their maximum computing potential, according to Moore's Law."

Moore's Law says nothing of any maximum of any kind. Moore himself has stated on more recent occasions (since the inception of the law) that he does not expect it to continue forever, but a date or even a decade has not been mentioned. The law is a method of estimating speed of advancement, not estimating an end point or maximum.

Also, other technologies are being researched to help prolong Moore's law as long as possible (besides quantum computing.) Various nanotechnologies, fuller inclusion of flash memory, multi-core systems, etc. I don't really think any of this deserves mention here, as no one knows what will happen. However, simply saying that "CPUs are expected to reach their maximum computing potential." isn't really accurate. There are many people that believe this, and many that don't. Some expect the advancement to continue all the way to the point of a technological singularity.

I fully agree, there is really no reason why it should be mentioned, since it's just not true. It would be extremely weird if the increase of computational capacity would cease to exist. The mention of CPUs "reaching their maximum computing potential" should be removed, since it's false. If there's no objections, I'll remove it later. Ran4 23:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

One 2005 paper says 13 years from then giving the date 2018. This is too soon. Better estimates give 30 to 40 years. However, one fact is certain, and that is no computer will ever be built with greater processing power than what can be built within the average lifetime of anyone born today. 199.125.109.38 (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Phone number, date styles

Continuing a trend starting in the late 1990s or early 2000s, telephone numbers with periods or dots between each sets of digits will rapidly predominate, so that by the end of the decade hyphenated phone numbers will become virtually obsolete. Periods will continue to become more popular in date formatting. The use of the format in the proposed .tel domain could play a role in this possible shift.

I've noticed this too, but is it anything more than a personal observation? If so, it shouldn't go in the article. --zenohockey 21:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Anniversaries

How about standardizing terminology: either [bi]centennial or 100th/200th anniversary, but not some of each. Matchups 21:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I changed all instances of the former terminology to the latter. --zenohockey 00:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Music Prediction

"vaily simular"? What the heck does that mean? Don't want to take it out in case I'm just dumb but that makes no sense.

No, it doesn't make sense to me either; the author should explain or delete. In fact, the entire "Music" section needs redoing -- it sounds like someone just putting forward their personal view without any references or sources. I'd change it, but I have no information to replace it at the moment, and don't want to leave it blank

WWII

It is likely that by the end of the decade, there will be under a handful, if any, surviving veterans from World War I. Equally, it is likely that the last people born in the Nineteenth Century will die during - DON'T they mean WWII seeing now there are only a small handful if any WWI veterans because by that time even if you enlisted into the army hen you were 10 you would be well over 100 years old ==

I'm fairly sure that what the sentence says is correct; by the 2010s, the youngest people who enlisted into the army would be well, pretty much ancient. There are some people who would live that long, albeit a handful as the article said. On the other hand, in the 2010s, there would be more than "a handful" of veterans from WWII.

I vaguely recall seeing a news article related to this (though I could be remembering wrongly). Unfortunately, I don't know which article this was: in the meantime, I'll tag the sentence for citations (should have done so the first time around). --Talon Artaine ^(talk) 07:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

We don't need citations for stuff that is common knowledge or that any adult can reasonably be expected to know. Given that its reasonable to expect people to be able to do simple maths, given that its reasonable to expect people to know the dates of WWI and given that its reasonble to expect people to know that very few people live beyong 110, I don't think it needs a source. --Robdurbar 17:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Predictions

Shouldn't that prediction under that category go under the next decade?69.204.219.97 16:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

New, encyclopedic & cited "pronunciation" section

I have added a new (rather lengthy) section on the pronunciation issues with 21st century years to this article, and would appreciate comments on it here. Any fixes you feel are needed, feel free to change them in the article. But please, do join me in conversation here prior to fully reverting. Thank you for co-operation. -- Sarcha 45 19:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Mainly, thank fook that someone has tried to add a decent section in, rather than the repeated addition of nonesense. I've added a couple of 'cn' tempaltes that could do with sourcing, but I'm reluctant to just chuck out. I'm not too keen on blogs as sources either... --Robdurbar 09:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Right. I'll try to find some permissable sources for the citationed-needed material, but I'm not sure why it's unclear that many English-speakers use "two thousand" rather than "twenty" at the moment to describe current years. I've never heard anyone say "twenty oh seven", and if so I'm positive its the minority spoken pronounciation. I've heard hundreds of people say "two thousand and". In either case, I'll try to find some sources for those, and if not I'll reword or remove some of it. Thanks -- Sarcha 45 16:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The Teens?

This decade is expected to be called the tens, the twenty-tens, or maybe even the teens.

Is there some sort of source for this?? ĞavinŤing 02:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• This is just ignorant... no offence GavinTing, but I think everyone knows that the 2010s are going to be called the teens in some way-shape-or form. Personally, everyone I talk to calls the decade the Tweenz (merge of Twenty and Teen). However this is probrably a local phrase... (Tigerghost 21:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC))

2010 the tenth year of the 00s?

Shouldn't the year 2010 be a part of the 00s and not the 2010s? Since you start counting from one January 1 2001 (the beginning of the first year of the 00s), that would make 2009 the ninth year of the decade and not the tenth. There fore year 2010 is the tenth year of the 00s and not the first year of the 10s. Emperor of Fatalism 12:05 P.M 25/07/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.117.185 (talk) 04:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC) The 2000s start on 1st January 2000, 2000 is a 2000s year, but is in the previous millennium. 2010 is the first year of the 2010s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.130.136.199 (talk) 14:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

1. 2000
2. 2001
3. 2002
4. 2003
5. 2004
6. 2005
7. 2006
8. 2007
9. 2008
10. 2009

--Josh Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 17:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

By this counting, the 10s (1st decade A.D. that is) would've started with year zero. Yet, there is no year zero, which means the 10s began with 1 and ended with 10, and therefore the 2010s actually begin with 2011 and end with 2020. That would be correct, but unfortunately, almost no one is counting this way. --bender235 (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but... Wikipedia is not about what people believe but about what is true. I'm changing that.--Fluence (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You certainly are changing Wikipedia is about what is true. Reverting. AGAIN (although not necessarily under your name). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

no. here's why. 2011-2020 is the second decade of the 21st century, but 2010-2019 is the 2010s or "tens". Darkohead (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

merge New Years

There's nothing factual or sourced in the article New Years' 2010, but, even if there were, it should be merged into the "names" section of this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved by deleting the article targeted to be merged in, per expired {{prod}}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Just for the records

64.7.134.118 (talk · contribs) added this, but LeadSongDog (talk · contribs) deleted it. Rightfully so, because Simmons′ predictions from Twilight in the Desert (2005) now turned out to be wrong. Oil is now at $40, and probably won't reach $200 a barrel within the next decade, let alone 2010. --bender235 (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

New wave revival

Many magazines predict that by 2011 there will be an early-80s inspired New wave revival and that fashions of the 2010s will be inspired by late 70s/early 80s. I hope they will prove right. 79.132.31.212 (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

2000s backlash

There probably is going to be 1970s and 1990s revival and 1980s and 2000s backlash. I hope so. 78.130.136.199 (talk) 14:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)