Almost all of them have been replaced by robots, so in that sense she was right, maybe a little off with the exact date.
Cards on the table: I don't believe anyone is or was a psychic. I do believe that skeptics are the worst when it comes to honesty. If Browne is off by a few years then she is a fraud,they claim. No, she was off by a few years. Skeptics set up criteria, e.g. accurate predictions, then when the criteria looks like it's being met, they move the goalposts, e.g. "she didn't get the year right."
This dishonesty was most prominently on display in the Skeptical Inquirer Magazine which when confronted with astrologer Robert Zoller's prediction that the US would be attacked on the east Coast in September 2001, which he made several times - the latest months before the attacks. They immediately said the prediction wasn't valid because he didn't give an exact date, or an exact location and a whole host of other stupid objections. So it's "You can't do it and if you do it, it doesn't count because ..." This is also known as a priori reasoning. It can't be true, so it isn't true. While the, frankly, stupidity of skeptics doesn't prove the validity of psychics or astrologers, it does rule out skeptics as having value. Skepticism today is largely a combination of ignorance and dishonesty. That's nothing to be proud of.From the enlightened comments>Give us a prediction Gary?