I'm not the first person to point this out, but one of the current puzzles is this (mind you, I'm riding the current reporting, which may be out of date within 24 hours):

... No one around the world has had significant problems (indeed, even the serious pollies in .gov and .mil are amazed.

... Many countries and entities were planning FOF for nearly everything (think Italy and numerous others).

... Yet it is claimed that "everyone" agrees that entities who spent vast sums of money spent it on the solution of a critically dangerous problem (cf Koskinen on this today).

Now, oversimplifying, here are the possibilities:

... Most of the money was spent on new hardware and software, not Y2K remediation (the Hoffy scenario).

... Y2K was never very serious

... We ain't seen nuttin yet.

Hoffy's scenario doesn't cut it alone. It only makes sense for the pollies if Y2K ALSO was never very serious (e.g., no one NEEDED to spend next to anything on it). Again, see the Italians and many others (remember those tens of millions of SMEs)?

This isn't a prediction thread but a meditation thread. I have no logical problem with the notion that Y2K was a programmatic joke, though it contradicts my own twenty years of IT experience nearly totally - and I'm from Missouri; I'll need to be shown this over the next five months.

My question here (sincerely) is: have I framed this question correctly? Because one thing is for darn certain --

If Y2K was never very serious, the Citibanks either didn't spend 800 mil on remediation OR they are terrible technologists.

If Y2K was critically dangerous, as Koskinen claims today, what's the deal with the non-Citibankers (the vast majority)?

I may be dumb, but I ain't stupid, or is I?

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), January 02, 2000

Answers

Based on the way this is being reported, no one is going to admit to any serious Y2K problems. If any one admitted problems, they would be laughed laughed at and accussed of being the most stupid person in the world. I can imagine an IT executive telling his CEO that there were serious problems. CEO: You are telling me you couldn't get the job done? Even Russia and China were prepared for Y2K, and they spent very little money. You are delusional. You are out of here!

-- Dave (dannco@hotmail.com), January 02, 2000.

Stupid, maybe not, just very gullible. And you are on a very long list. Notice that there were no problems with embedded in Gambia? What does that tell you?

Take a deep breath BD, your reappraisal is just starting. There will be NO SIGNFICANT problems due to Y2K - as I have been saying for the past two years. Big Ed, Capers Jones, Yardeni, - none of them understood the nature of the challenge, or why it would be solved. But the answer was there all along - they were just too pig-headed to see it.

Question your premises BD, and it will all become clear

Gotta go - the skiing is glorious here - back next week for some serious taunting.

-- Computer Pro (first_minister@hotmail.com), January 02, 2000.

Interestingly enough, Big Dog, Gary North has long claimed that the ONLY way that Y2K would turn out to be a bump in the road (which, as of this writing, it is more like a bug on the windshield) is if it actually were innocuous -- always had been. The fact that some foreign countries that EVERYONE agrees did practically nothing in the way of remediation/replacement, should come out just fine would seem to support this.

Only the upcoming weeks will tell....

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), January 02, 2000.

BigDog: I am a bit dense and over-tired today - even more than usual, so have patience. Are you thinking that things don't quite add up and are wondering why? If so, here are some thoughts:

Remember the thread last month where we discussed that this period may be like the Fog of War - that we may not even be able to tell what is really happening?

There have been, and continue to be, no shortages of unknowns and uncertainties. So instead of Y2K + Y2K != Y2K, may I suggest unknowns + uncertainties = imperfect knowledge. It has been said that "what you don't know can hurt you." I'm sure you realize it is also true that "what we think we know that just ain't so" can ruin our day as well.

Our knowledge of the many variables in the equation is imperfect. It is also incomplete. It has always been, and will remain so. It is no wonder that some have expressed the feeling that something just doesn't add up. It seldom does, despite the fact that human nature dictates that we want it to, we need it to, make sense and add up. It doesn't, and probably never will. Yet we try, and this is important, since thinking people have to predicate conclusions on something. It is also human nature that we insist on trying. Perhaps the Fog will lift here and there - enough for us to get glimpses of truth - yet even these will be but threads in the fabric quilt of reality.

There are many words I would use to describe you BD, but stupid has never been one of them. Keep trying to add things up, as so many of us are doing. We have just as much right to be wrong as anyone else. After all, when you know you don't know you know, then you know you don't know. You know? :) Happy New Years and be well. Best always, Rob.

-- (sonofdust@burnt.out), January 02, 2000.

I have to agree with King Of Spains line of thought (Or gary Norths statement that the only way he could be wrong was if Y2K was nothing to start with).

Its possible "We ain't seen nothing yet".

But it sure looks like it never was a real problem since China ("90% pirated software") APPEARS to have escaped serious problems. I don't see any indication that taking this thing "seriously" (U.S.)was any different than ignoring it (Italy, China, Africa, and others).

And besides all this, There is just something wierd about this whole thing. Maybe we're being lied to, maybe God intervened, maybe I (or you) are just dreaming. But things do just not make sense yet.

The kids are mad that I won't let them start on the stored candy for another month though.

-- Jon Johnson (narnia4@usa.net), January 02, 2000.

This ones easy

Y2K + Y2K = 2Y4K or 2(Y2K)...

-- Squid (ItsDark@down.here), January 02, 2000.

I'm guessing that the chip problem never was big. Nobody seemed to be able to get their arms around it. The code -- your area of expertise -- remains effectively untested. Nobody is going to fess up on the first business day that TSHTF, but in only their company. Time will tell. I feel a little silly, but my rational mind reminds me that we are only in the first quarter. I'm sure that Cory Hamasaki hasn't changed his opionion much, being one of a significant percentage who never bought into the exploding microwave model (aka embedded chip problem) anyway. Your disconnect is well stated.

-- Dave (aaa@aaa.com), January 03, 2000.