We knew. However we knew there would be problems so we emphasized extremely unlikely scenarios to get the budgets to prevent the really annoying shit that might’ve happened.
We rarely disagree, but I’m gonna pull the “I work in the industry” card on you. A lot of hardworking people prevented bad things from happening whether big or small. We only look back at it as overblown because of them.
You’re focusing on the extreme unrealistic end of what people were worried about with Y2K, but the realistic range of concerns got really high up there too. There were realistic concerns about national power grids going offline and not being easily fixable, for example.
The huge amount of work and worry that went into Y2K was entirely justified, and trying to blow it off as “people were worried about nuclear armageddon, weren’t they silly” is misrepresenting the seriousness of the situation.
It’s not what more you should have said, but what less. It’s the “people were worried about nuclear armageddon” thing that’s the problem here. You’re making it look like the concerns about Y2K were overblown and silly.
Well you’re welcome to think that, but that wasn’t what I was talking about. I was talking about what people were actually worried about rather than what the person claimed people were worried about.
I literally quoted what I was responding to, so I have no idea why you’re taking that away from what I said that I was suggesting Y2K wasn’t a big deal when I wasn’t even discussing the reality of the situation.
No. I’m saying that something like today would have happened only it would have been much worse in that it couldn’t be fixed in the space of hours / days.
Sure, but even the worst Y2K effects wouldn’t have had what lots of people were worried about, which was basically the apocalypse.
People who really should have known better were telling me that Y2K would launch the missiles in the silos.
We knew. However we knew there would be problems so we emphasized extremely unlikely scenarios to get the budgets to prevent the really annoying shit that might’ve happened.
We rarely disagree, but I’m gonna pull the “I work in the industry” card on you. A lot of hardworking people prevented bad things from happening whether big or small. We only look back at it as overblown because of them.
Are you really going to claim that we would have had a global thermonuclear armageddon if Y2K mitigation was a failure?
You’re focusing on the extreme unrealistic end of what people were worried about with Y2K, but the realistic range of concerns got really high up there too. There were realistic concerns about national power grids going offline and not being easily fixable, for example.
The huge amount of work and worry that went into Y2K was entirely justified, and trying to blow it off as “people were worried about nuclear armageddon, weren’t they silly” is misrepresenting the seriousness of the situation.
I literally said in my first comment:
What more should I have said?
It’s not what more you should have said, but what less. It’s the “people were worried about nuclear armageddon” thing that’s the problem here. You’re making it look like the concerns about Y2K were overblown and silly.
Well you’re welcome to think that, but that wasn’t what I was talking about. I was talking about what people were actually worried about rather than what the person claimed people were worried about.
I literally quoted what I was responding to, so I have no idea why you’re taking that away from what I said that I was suggesting Y2K wasn’t a big deal when I wasn’t even discussing the reality of the situation.
No. I’m saying that something like today would have happened only it would have been much worse in that it couldn’t be fixed in the space of hours / days.
Sure, but that’s not what people were worrying about at the time, which was my point.