What I learned from Y2k

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

I was a 7 to 8 GI. I prepared for severe disruption: no power, heat, water, food, etc., etc. etc. I have about three months of rice, canned goods, water, etc. stored in my basement; alternate power (generator); and even a "bug out bag."

But now?

Well, let's just say that this past weekend was an eye opener. For the life of me, I couldn't figure out how people like Robert Cook, P.E., and others on this page could be so wrong about the whole matter.

Now, many people have raised the question of "Do you feel foolish (or worse) for preparing for Y2k?" I think my answer to that question is yes and no. No, I do not feel foolish that I have preparations for a future hurricane, tornado (not common where I live) or severe snowstorm (more common). But I feel utterly redfaced that I did this in anticipation of Y2k.

I remember, long ago when I was about 20, someone once telling me that , if you can't avoid making a mistake, learn from it. How could I have misjudged the whole world? After sitting down and really thinking about it, here's what I've come up with, and lessons learned from the mistakes I've made:

(1) Never bet against self interest. If people have an incentive to do something, and the costs (monetary or otherwise) don't exceed the benefit, they will do so. That's how the Y2k "problem" started in the first place. But it's also how it got resolved. People realized that, to keep their jobs, they'd have to fix problems: running from CEOs to major corporations (who have to respond to the board of directors) and board of directors of those corporations (who have to answer to the shareholders) to people working in cubicles fixing the problem (who would be out of a job and disgraced if they failed).

Incentives were not, as some thought, to give up and run off to the Bahamas. Why? Because they'd get caught, and because that sort of benefit is not worth the risk.

Understand incentives and you understand everything.

Observation on this point: corporations are more responsive to these incentives than governments, simply because there is more direct accountability, not because they necessarily have more money to throw at the problem.

(2) People are very bad at assessing risk. Big nasty risks (like being killed in a terrorist attack) get more attention than simpler, equally horrible risks (like being killed in a car crash). In either case, there is a 1:1 death ratio (the same person can only be killed once). We fear (probably) terrorists more than car crashes, for whatever reason, even though dying in a car crash is far more likely. For the same reason, I think we feared y2k -- it was big and attention grabbing (at least for me), sort of complicated, and "no one knew" what was going to happen.

Someone made fun of me a while back by asking "do you wear a crash helmet while driving?" to point out that I was being paranoid of the wrong risk (and that, for instance, I should be more concerned about dying in a car crash) (Of course, I don't a helmet when driving in my car.) But if you think about that lesson -- preparing for the wrong perceived problem -- the point of that person's (I won't mention his name) post now seems to make sense.

In the future, I will think more carefully about the actual probability of things, and weigh them on a cost/benefit analysis.

(3) People who get together on a board like this can do a lot (even if , in our case, it was a little wrongheaded). We should channel our efforts into something that is quantifiable. Maybe trying to do something with the Red Cross. Maybe something with cancer awareness. Wouldn't it be a good thing if the end result of this page was not a bunch of people going either "Boy, I was dumb" or "I told you so" but rather a nation (and world) wide bunch of volunteers involved in some WORTHY cause. (No more Chicken Little causes.)

Thoughts?

-- Lesson Learned (Lesson@Learned.com), January 03, 2000

Answers

Nice to realize that NOW, dork.

-- UR2Late (Too@Late.com), January 03, 2000.

How about PEOPLE AGAINST CONTRAILS?

-- PAC (PAC@pac.net), January 03, 2000.

thats wrong; lots of people get killed in a terrorist attak and only a few in a car crash

-- Unlearned (Lessonunlearned@learned.com), January 03, 2000.

No, unlearned, the statistics are 100% accurate. It is more likely (probable) that you would die in a car crash than in a terrorist attack, even if LOTS more people die in any given attack. Ask an actuary.

-- Statman (statman@statistics.net), January 03, 2000.

I feel no more foolish about being prepared to care for my family and myself than the more than $28,000.00 I will have paid to my insurance company - hoping my house doesn't burn down. You shouldn't feel foolish either. Accept the successes, be prepared for the "surprises", and live each day as best you can. Can't go wrong with that.

-- Mr.K (MrK@home.today), January 03, 2000.


"The System" is still going to die. Just a matter of time. Y2K may still be its undoing. Things take time to happen. It will happen, logic alone should tell you that no slave system can stand for long and this one has been standing far too long...but after that...PEACE!

Predictions will fail, especially exact dates. The above prediction will not fail.

I don't think it is "the economy stupid." I think it is the Stupid Economy.

-- Mark Hillyard (foster@inreach.com), January 03, 2000.


It would have been completely stupid NOT to prepare. NO ONE KNEW. We are here right now through sheer, dumb LUCK--or could it be God's grace? The best and the brightest said there was a danger. The government itself said we were not prepared. Were we foolish to pre??? NO!

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), January 03, 2000.

I feel personally that TEOTWAWKI caused by this would have been a lot less painful, than what we are now going to face. I was more or less prayinging that the computer tower of Babble would have come about. So that we could have wiped the slate clean and started over. How else could what is in our nation's capital been wiped out? Possibly getting rid of all the sleaze that has embedded itself there, and putting something more for and by the people. Of course that is impossible now, they are more embedded than ever. No way of flushing them down the toilet. Now we must face result. My friend, to me that is not pretty at all.

-- Notforlong (Fsur439@aol.com), January 03, 2000.

Lesson Learned,

I could be wrong, but it sounds like you had probably acted more on fear than through rational judgment. No wonder you feel foolish; I would too. Apologies if I misinterpreted your post.

And of course you can sometimes bet against self-interest. Businesses fail every day.

UR2Late,

You called Lesson Learned a "dork." I'll just bet you were on the high school debate team. Assuming you've graduated, of course.

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 03, 2000.


I'm going to wait for at least a month to observe Y2K computer problems before deciding what I learned about Y2K.

In early 1999, experts in the subject of embedded systems began saying they were finding few problems ... and very few of those problems would have temporarily disrupted production. Until then it was impossible to predict what problems the embedded systems/automated controls would cause. The "experts" I listened to included electrical engineering websites and even the Gartner Group. Because the Gartner Group worked on Y2K projects and could have been biased to keep potential customers frightened about embedded systems problems, their optimistic reports on embedded systems were surprising -- but I listened to them. If they were optimistic, I decided I should be optimistic too.

I was a 2 or 3 out of 10 on Y2K and had no preparations at all for Y2K ... but others who stored food and water now have protection for REAL winter storms. I've been without power several times in my life, once for three days, and if I had any brains I'd have some canned food, bottled water and a generator too. I've had friends who suffered frozen pipes from power failures in the past -- they all have generators now. So anything you purchased for Y2K is there for real storms. You probably didn't waste money. Except maybe for three months of rice.

-- Richard Greene (Rgreene2@ford.com), January 03, 2000.



This appears to be the typical response from those that predicted doom for Y2K. First they woke up, nothing had happened so now they say: "Oh, I didn't mean it was necessarily going to happen on the first, but just wait, in another week, month, year..." It's over, you were wrong, deal with it. Here's what'll help to screw it all up, all you people that spent your savings for generators and supplies that go and try to return them. Now wouldn't that impact the economy considering how many of you there were. Come on, here's your chance to bring things crashing down so that you can say "I told you so!"

-'nuff said

-- bwc (shaithis1@mediaone.net), January 03, 2000.


bwc,

In general, why would anyone try to return their stuff? For the most part, it's wealth -- just a different form of it. The rest was insurance expense.

Personally, I love my new tools that I work with; and I'm starting to eat some of the food.

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 03, 2000.


Two more lessons learned:

(1) People aren't as stupid as we often assume we are. Look at how much remediation WAS actually completed. The world stock markets work. Telephone lines work. Power has stayed up. People are capable of a lot. Posts on this board ALWAYS assumed everone but GIs were either DGIs or DWGIs. But in reality, I think there was the vast silent majority of people who realized the potential impact of the problem, and labored to fix it.

(2) For all of the talk about "interconnectedness," I offer a counter- hypothesis: "robustness." "Robustness" means that, despite flawas and inconveniences, people will get tasks done (even if the bug does bite in some locations).

(3) Finally, in response to comments made above, I think the ultimate lesson learned is risk assessment. If you pay $28,000 for insurance, you must logically think that the benefit of such insurance outweighs the potential costs.

For example, if there is a one in four chance of there being a $112,001 harm to you, you'll want to pay $28,000 for insurance. Why? The cost [$28,000] is less than the probability (.25) times the harm [$112,001]. You can play with the numbers (the harm and the probability) to figure out if it was a good investment for you. If there is only a one in ten chance of a $112,001 harm to you, $28,000 is too much. If there is a 50/50 chance, $28,000 is a steal!

(Of course, when figuring out cost, you need to factor in ALL costs -- lost opportunity, inconvenience, et al., not just out of pockets.)

-- (Lesson@Learned.com), January 03, 2000.


Mara,

You keep shouting "NO ONE KNEW" over and over in darn near every thread on this board. You're wrong. Many of us knew there was no danger of a systemic melt-down and that, while there was certainly some risk of isolated terrorist activities, such terroristic activities would certainly be isolated, localized, and short-term. Pre-rollover no one wanted to listen to us and the chances of seeing a realistic and accurate assessment of the Y2K situation in the media fell somewhere between zero and nil. Pre-rollover those who knew, and dared reveal the truth in forums such as this, were derided and called pollys.

You also keep saying things like, "The best and the brightest said there was a danger."

Wrong again. You never heard from the best and the brightest -- they weren't exciting enough to be quoted on the evening news.

You also said, "The government itself said we were not prepared."

So, you really expect "the government" to be competent?

There will be humorous and sometimes inconvenient little glitches for months to come, but it's time that you and the thousands of others who overreacted simply face it, learn from it, and move on instead of screaming defensively about how stupid and "pollyana" those of us who knew better were for NOT spending our life's savings on freeze-dried food and hermetically packaged toilet paper.

It would be nice if people learn from this and maybe, just maybe, the next time the ratings-seeking talking heads start babbling about a big crisis, more people will stop to think for themselves and seek advice from people who actually DO KNOW what they're talking about.

John

-- John (nospam@nospam.com), January 03, 2000.


John,

You make some interesting assertions. Can you back them up?

How did you know that there would be no systemic meltdown? Who, in your opinion, are "the best and the brightest," and those who "do know what they're talking about"? What did they say? Did you attempt to share all of this with the forum prior to 12/31? If not, why not?

Thank you,

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 03, 2000.



John's post is the closest to my observations regarding this forum and the Y2K phenomenon in general I've seen yet. Some of us involved in Y2K preperations knew there would be no real wide-scale infrastructure failures when the clock turned. "Knew" is a tricky word here - in this context I define it as "could not in any way prove, but felt qualified, observant and experienced enough to bet a lot on it." Take that for what it's worth - that is not a real definition of "knew", but you also don't "know" a lot of things that you're willing to bet a lot on (you won't accidentally kill your family in a car crash tomorrow For Many Good Unprovable Reasons, you won't be killed by a terrorist tomorrow FMGUR, etc.)

It's not based on betting on the odds - it's based (for me at least) on participating in two fortune 500 corporations' Y2K remedial IT projects (1 health care & 1 Financial services.) It's based on observing human behavior - and I apologize for this, but I need to qualify that as "normal" human behavior. Most of the doom-and-gloom club do not fall into that category, from what I've observed. If most people were like them, then I would have been very, very afraid of the reaction to minor Y2K glitches and the effect they would have on the general population. "Normal" is people like my neighbors and my family, who I know from experience can not be rattled by power outages, disrupted phone service, and the like.

I'm glad most people are like them. I'm also glad to have been able to contribute to the technical side of things, and actually had some good times with people working on a common goal towards the same end. And you know what? We did it calmly, with humor and pragmatism. We did our work and attended cross-industry seminars where we saw the vast effort in other industries and the government first-hand. These are just some of the reasons I and many others "knew" what was going to happen 1/1, 1/2, and 1/3 going forward.

This phrase "Death by a thousand paper cuts" has legs, and you're going to see it a lot, and if you're a "doomer", it will probably sustain you for a month or so. It has no teeth, no real basis in reality. If you had any idea how many "paper-cuts" your average fortune 500 company or government agency sees every day you would know that the skin there is already pretty thick.

Please try to have a happy new year before the year gets old!

-- Bemused (looking@you.com), January 04, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ