Response to Ed Yourdon's Jan. 6 Cop Out

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

I told Sysman I would await Yourdon's comments on Y2K post rollover before forming my opinion of his work regarding Y2K. Well, his post yesterday was simply....stunning. I almost gagged that the man has the audacity to post even more nonsense.

But by the summer and fall of 1999, it was far more clear to everyone that the disruptions were more likely to be short-term and localized. But in my mind, that was just the first of three stages of Y2K; as I suggested in an essay entitled "My Y2K Outlook: A Year of Disruptions, A Decade of Depression," the second stage was likely to be a series of disruptions caused by less-than-catastrophic Y2K-related failures:

"None of this necessarily means that the electricity will be out for six months, let alone a full year; none of it means that we should necessarily expect to lose nationwide telephone service for a full year; none of this means necessarily that we should expect our bank to be closed for six months. But it does mean that we're likely to be living in an environment much like the Third World countries some of us have visited, where nothing works particularly well. One day the phones will be out; the next day, the phones will work but the air-conditioning in our office building will be down; that will be fixed a couple days later, but then the banks will decide to close for a day because of some unexplained problem." "You're welcome to disagree with this assessment, but it seems to me that many individuals in this country are already beginning to experience these kinds of disruptions. "

Yourdon goes on to give examples of our third world problems, with much hype, melodrama, and yes, exageration - where have we seen this before? Slick, real slick work. I am not going to debunk this one. You guys do it for yourselves. You have eyes, ears, minds of your own. Don't be leemings this time, don't be the sucker. You have seen the rollover, you have seen the lights stay on, the water flow, and transportation continue to work. Yes there are bugs, some minor, some more serious. But its not even close to being a threating event or a blow to society - you know it, I know it, and I believe Ed can read as well. Don't go for it, throw your own bullshit flags this time, lol.

Regards,

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), January 08, 2000

Answers

Calling all leemings, calling all leemings: I want you to march north, ... no, south ... no, east ... well, whatever.

As for you, Afraid, I'd appreciate it if you would please keep your distance from my um. you know ...

Ed

-- Ed Yourdon (ed@yourdon.com), January 08, 2000.


"You're welcome to disagree with this assessment,"

-- Porky (Porky@in.cellblockD), January 08, 2000.

The link to the latest hype: http://www.yourdon.com/index.htm

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), January 08, 2000.

FF,

Please, tell me, what is a leeming? I don't wish to be one, so you must tell me what it is, so I will know what to do.

-- (Afraid@of.leemings), January 08, 2000.


Afraid, A leeming is kind of like a lemming, 'cept for the spelling ;)

For an example of one of these critters, watch yourself kiss Yourdons ass while he tells you black is white and up is down and right is wrong and yes is no and bad is good and the y2k rollover has been a huge disaster and we're barely hanging on like a third world country....

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), January 08, 2000.



FactFinder:

Well now, THAT was simply...

Pathetic.

-- (Kurt.Borzel@gems8.gov.bc.ca), January 08, 2000.


FF,

Thank you thank you! I am so grateful that you will tell me what to do. So, if I do not watch myself while I kiss Mr. Yourdon's, um, you know, then I will not be a leeming? Will this be a good thing, FF?

-- (Afraid@of.leemings), January 08, 2000.


Ed: Kudos for retaining your sense of humor. While they've been busy thumping their chests, pollies seem to have collectively lost theirs somewhere along this strange and twisting journey.

Just another leeming, but one who truly loves laughter...

-- Steve (hartsman@ticon.net), January 08, 2000.


heeheeheeheehee

ROFL Ed.

heeheeheeheehee

-- DavePrime (DavePrime@hotmail.com), January 08, 2000.


I like everyone, ok?

But this display of people tripping all over each other to thank Ed and groveling in his presence is ... well...pathetic.

ok, I'm done now

-- cin (cinlooo@aol.com), January 08, 2000.



Are you sure that the 'FF' doesn't stand for Fault Finder?

-- Connie Iversen (hive@gte.net), January 08, 2000.

A chat with Ed Yourdon

-- (For@the.record), January 08, 2000.

"We are likely to see failures of some international banking systems. We are likely to see bankruptcies of industrial organizations around the world because of Y2K problems. And we are likely to see problems in air transportation and air shipping which will disrupt global trade. "

Well, one week has passed, there have been some breakdowns, minor but significant, in Duetsche Bank and some credit card problems, one or two firms have gone bankrupt- can't remember, they were small but reported here- and we have seen some disruptions in air and train transport. SO he has been right in kind but not in degree so far. What will the figures look like 2Q 2000? We wait and see.

-- Forrest Covington (theforrest@mindspring.com), January 08, 2000.


FactFinder,

So in other words,

Point # 1: You (Ed's readers) read only him, and can't think for themselves, thus they're "lemmings."

Point # 2: Ed's argument is just "Nonsense", "slick", "hype", "melodrama", and "exaggeration"!

Point # 3: Why, it's even later than 12:01am, January 1, and look -- the lights are on and everything looks ok and we're still here!

I assume this about sums up your post -- right? Apologies if I misconstrued or overlooked something.

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 08, 2000.


FactFinder,

I took the liberty of aggregating five separate "subtopics" in point #2, above, just to keep the list manageable. (Mona Lisa smile)

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 08, 2000.



Oh FactFinder, you are such a tease. From your subject line I thought you were going to present "A Serious Discussion."

Cool, I thought, I'll read that...

But you let me down...

Darnit, I wasn't feeling like laughing my ass off right now...

YOU ruined my morning.

-- snooze button (alarmclock_2000@yahoo.com), January 08, 2000.


FF... Another free thinking mind associated with no existing opinion says, "me too, me too, don't forget me.", He said, cynical tongue firmly pressed into sarcastic cheek. Really impressive bit of writing. Thanks for that edifying and illuminating bit of rational.

-- Michael Erskine (Osiris@urbanna.net), January 08, 2000.

Agendas FF?

Ed Yourdon - Unbelievable, he still distorts, exagerates, and lies about y2k.....the Fraud continues, but will his doomers continue to follow?.

http://stand77.com/wwwboard/messages/10604.html

Posted by (12.77.60.205) FactFinder on January 07, 2000 at 21:28:54:

-- (watching@thewatchers.watch), January 08, 2000.


Ed:

Johathan Swift wrote:

"When a true genius in appears in the world you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

Given this, it appears you can be considered a true genius and it is my pleasure to respect you as one. I am (was) a doomer and prepped to handle almost anything that would get thrown at me at my location in a big city for 6 months. I have you to thank for that and I don't regret having done it (I'm now finally ready for earthquakes). I have learned a lot, and are now seriouly considering a move to a small town (I'm an amateur astronomer and have always dreamed of being in the country where you can actually see the stars).

However, in keeping with your sentiments about postmortems, I have requested the same of others here and submitted my own hypothesis about why we were wrong in our original assessments.

I think here is where I find your responses very thin and lacking substance. You seem bent on still trying to convince people you were correct and did nothing wrong. I think this approach is going to get you into more trouble over time.

A new approach is needed, one that questions everything we did to get to our original assesments to begin with, if we wish to truly learn from the experiance so as not to repeat it again.

I think you do not help your case by reiterating the arguments from the pre y2k era, now. Doing so is to assume they were correct, but the problem is that the very strong perception is that they are wrong because of the "evidence". So I believe you will never convince anyone that they are correct now, even if you are. We need to examine all the assumptions that went into the original assessments more closely and see if they were indeed correct to begin with.

For example, I submit the facts about the number of small/mid size businesses that prepared was correct, but the interpretation of the facts is incorrect.

And similary with respect to emebeds, I think the whole issue was fundementally misjudged from top to bottom, and that is truely amazing. I am not so presumptious to assume that only I can determine this and I am sure many have said this before y2k and after y2k, but I find the lack of serious rebuttle by the "doomers" to this actually rather revealing.

Is that something to complain about now? Obviously not, we would not and could not know this until now. But in keeping with your concept of postmoterms, it would be very valuable to first see if my hyphothesies are correct, and if so why was this missed before y2k. Somebody was obviously not paying attention. A lot of somebodies I would say. But why? Where did the pre-y2k assessments of the situation break down?

With resepect to just thesse 2 examples, the Emeds and the the small businesses, I have explained my thoughts about why I now think they were a non issue at length in the following two threads and refer you to them for your comments.

Why nothing was ever going to happen with the embeds

Serious Question on Embeddeds

WRT to the small businesses and their ripple effects, Here is my take on the small and mid size business situation:

Hyatt: Y2K will not be a one time event...

-- Interested Spectator (is@the_ring.side), January 08, 2000.


Watching,

Thank you for reminding us, in a consise, devastating "summation" of his finer points, much of which FactFinder was "arguing" above. We almost forgot.

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 08, 2000.


Oops ... "which" should be "what" in my post above. (need more coffee)

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 08, 2000.

Eve,

I find your analysis diappointingly shallow. You are quickly moving into the "lisa@work" class of poster... two sentences and out, with little added to the overall discussion.

I'm do not approve of "Fact Finders" hyperbolic style, however, he/she does provide a correct quotation from Mr. Yourdon. In predicting the U.S. would become like a "third world" country, Yourdon was clearly wrong. You might argue the year is not over yet, however, the linkage between social/economic meltdown and Y2K become more tenuous with each passing day.

On a recent thread, Yourdon expressed regret over his "Beirut" quote. Like any prognosticator, Yourdon will face his own words many times over the coming year. It is the price prophets pay.

You may have found Yourdon's "Time Bomb 2000" a compelling read. You may have found merit in his speculations. In the end, however, his arguments did not stand the test of time... rollover time. Without doubt there are glitches throughout the system, but it will take far worse than annoying computer problems to tip the U.S. into a ten-year depression... unless you wish to offer a compelling argument to the contrary.

You have a choice, Eve. You can attempt the glib, witty approach and simply mock the posts you do not agree with. It seems the preferred choice of many participants. Or you might engage the subject with intellectual integrity. Frankly, Eve, you cannot have it both ways.

Spectator,

Every literate "kook" has taken great solace in Swift's words. Unfortunately, only a handful have been vindicated by the harsh judge of time. As for Yourdon, the people who have questioned him are hardly a confederation of "dunces." The majority of IT professionals did not share his views. Nor did the majority of economists, analysts, engineers, embedded chip experts, etc. In the end, Yourdon was not correct... and while he may well be a genius, he missed the mark on Y2K.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), January 08, 2000.


Ken,

First, I seriously think that if you removed all of the personal "zingers" from your post it wouldn't be much longer than my own.

And I didn't mean to come across in a snippy, ironic (or whatever) manner, but sometimes that's the best way to highlight flaws in an opponent's post -- especially when the opponent has presented no real argument. And you really can sometimes present a clear point in a few sentences, as opposed to rambling on, paragraph after paragraph, as some of us are prone to do.

If you go back to my thread, "In the Name of the Best Within Us", you'll find, in a concise form, my thoughts on what I feel are important principles underlying this and many other arguments that are going on. It's tiring for me to repeat them over and over. Maybe I should just repost it once a month or so. I put it out on 12/31 and it got very few responses, as I recall, which is too bad, as I poured my heart and soul into it. I don't know...maybe it got buried in the avalanche that day.

The issue of whether Yourdon was correct or not in his judgments is really secondary to whether his intentions were honorable, i.e., if he attempted to put his points across with with honesty and forthrightness. Do you have evidence that he was deceitful, manipulative, etc.? If not, I think you should let this go.

But for more of my thoughts on this, please re-read that post of mine. If you don't think it applies (and some of it may not -- I really don't remember the whole thing), let me know, and we can talk some more.

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 08, 2000.


KD: "Without doubt there are glitches throughout the system, but it will take far worse than annoying computer problems to tip the U.S. into a ten-year depression... unless you wish to offer a compelling argument to the contrary."

ME: Ken, this is a simple assertion without 'compelling argument' to support it. It seems to me you need to practice what you preach. You have the high moral ground (or appear to be trying to grab it). Therefore the onus is on you. Support this claim...

-- Michael Erskine (Osiris@urbanna.net), January 08, 2000.


Ken,

If you would prefer not to have to dig up and re-read (I remember that you were one of the few who responded to it!) that thread I was referring to, I'll understand. I know it can be a pain to retrieve something and have to match up the arguments, etc. So, if that's the case, let me know, just respond to the points I brought out directly in my prior post, feel free to reassert points you already brought up that I may have skipped over, etc. and I'll be glad to continue the discussion with you.

Michael,

Good point. Ken...?

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 08, 2000.


AisA

No amount of talking, wishing, propaganda, misinformation etc. can and ever will change that.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), January 08, 2000.


Cherri,

Are you referring to Aristotle's axiom? If so, I agree, but are you trying to address something specific in this thread?

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 08, 2000.


Cherri,

...or was it Ayn Rand?

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 08, 2000.


The issue of whether Yourdon was correct or not in his judgments is really secondary to whether his intentions were honorable, i.e., if he attempted to put his points across with with honesty and forthrightness.

So why isn't he using honesty and forthrightness in admitting that he was incorrect in his judgements? It appears that the issue stems less from his being incorrect, and more from the fact that he simply won't admit i

-- (bolo@erkfil.org), January 08, 2000.


Bolo,

Is it perhaps because he honestly feels we're not out of the woods yet?

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 09, 2000.


eve:

Before rollover, Yourdon wrote that a 3-day blackout was the "most likely scenario" for us. After rollover, he wrote that "nobody really expected" a blackout. It's for this kind of thing Yourdon is now being criticized. Is he really waiting to see if we have a 3-day blackout at rollover? Be serious. His requests (on a few rumor threads) to be kept posted just in case the rumors panned out give every indication that he is trying to build a case that his predictive essays were "substantially accurate" or some such.

A year of disruptions, a decade of depression? From y2k? Even at this early date, it has become obvious that justifying such a prediction is going to require some rather transparent special pleading. Those who failed utterly to heed any of the warnings Yourdon sounded will clearly never know what they missed. He was NOT talking about widely scattered, temporary, nearly invisible glitches. He was talking about technology in the US being reduced to third world levels. And any trend leading to anything even remotely close to that would be glaringly obvious by now.

To retain any integrity, his focus ought to shift from whether he was wrong to why he was wrong. If he does so, I think we can still learn a lot from what he says. On the other hand, if the gist of his essays is that he was "mostly" right, that's bound to do him much more harm than good in the long run.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 09, 2000.


Flint; You seem to be starting from an assumption which is premature, that he was wrong in the first place.

Let me spell it out for you flint... you EE's can be so damned digital. It is TOO EARLY TOO KNOW IF HE WAS WRONG.

You said you respected him. If that was ever true, you can continue to do that for this little while and your penis wont fall off.

-- Michael Erskine (Osiris@urbanna.net), January 09, 2000.


Flint,

I appreciate your response. My reply is attempted without his materials at hand; I just can't bring myself to dig them up. It's 3 in the morning here and I'm about ready to pass out. Apologies if some of my assumtions about his position are incorrect.

Since his 3-day blackout scenario was the "most likely", as you indicate, I assume, therefore, that the bad scenarios in your second paragraph were less likely (middle scenarios) or least likely (worst case scenario). I agree with you that as we look around us today, it's almost impossible to envision disaster scenarios happening. But since those are least likely (per Ed), why is there a problem with these scenarios simply not happening? Wouldn't that be the expectation anyway?

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 09, 2000.


Ken,

As you may note, I've reposted the thread I had referred to above. The main point that applies here is that I think it is reasonable to assume, until shown otherwise, that Ed did the best he knew how, and did it honestly. I haven't yet read all the attacks on Ed, but I have read quite a bit, and I have yet to see anything remotely resembling evidence that might back up claims or insinuations that he was dishonest or otherwise devious in his methods.

It's very easy to see, for example, that someone could see a money making opportunity in something that they truly believe in. People do it all the time. George Reisman (a former student Ludwig Von Mises) wrote a fantastic treatise on capitalism a couple of years back. I was familiar with Reisman and had no doubts whatsoever about his honesty and genuineness. In fact, he was such a passionate advocate of capitalism, I can well picture him putting out the book even if he didn't need the money.

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 09, 2000.


Oops... (or as Keanu Reeves might have said in any one of a number of his characterizations, "WHOA...")

above post should read, "a former student of Ludwig Von Mises"

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 09, 2000.


Michael Erskine:

[Let me spell it out for you flint... you EE's can be so damned digital. It is TOO EARLY TOO KNOW IF HE WAS WRONG.]

OK, let's consider this, since it lies at the heart of of the fears of those who remain fearful. No, I can't predict the future any better than anyone else, I can only observe current conditions as carefully as I can and try to understand them and extrapolate from them.

1) Clearly, the blackouts didn't happen, the water problems didn't happen, communications didn't break down, refineries didn't blow up, oil is still being pumped and transported, chemical facilities appear to be fine, etc. We know that with the possibility of as yet unidentified exceptions (despite a lot of investigation), the window of opportunity for embedded systems to do their damage has passed. So the "unstable/failed infrastructure" fears are now thankfully obsolete.

2) OK, let's look at flaky business processes. We have indeed seen a few of these -- incorrect dates on bills, and all manner of minor glitches popping up. The early report from Gartner was that 400 glitches had been reported on the first business day, almost all of which were rectified within an hour or two, and very few had any impact on business processes. By all indications, the *rate* at which such flakiness is cropping up is dropping. The strong implication is that residual date bugs are being ironed out of the code paths used most commonly.

Most significantly, the impact on JIT has been miniscule. Parts and supplies are still being manufactured without problems, and transported without problems, and distributed without problems. There have been some short delays reported here and there as we'd expect, but the problem is NOT endemic. JIT continues to work effectively. No important shortages have been reported (that I've seen) anywhere in the supply chain. And with JIT, any such shortages would be very noticeable indeed after a week.

Perhaps equally important, bank settlements appear to be working acceptably, even internationally.

3) This leaves "hidden" problems, of two varieties: Subtly corrupted data waiting to pop up and do damage later, and processes (like end of month or quarter, etc.) which have yet to be run, and which may contain date bugs as yet unencountered.

The danger from corrupted data appears to be evaporating. After all, such data aren't used solely to produce corrupted reports later. They are used daily by the business processes which are not experiencing more than isolated and mostly trivial problems (diminishing all the time). In practice, the constant daily use of business data is a very important method of validating such data. And you can be sure such business data are being examined in great detail, much moreso than normally.

This leaves bugs in infrequently run processes which have yet to be encountered. I'm sure some such bugs will be encountered. But already we've seen that (a) Most such processes have been remediated and tested on sample data and most errors found and fixed; and (b) By extension, date bugs in general have demonstrated themselves as being amenable to quick and simple repair.

So if it's too early to know if Yourdon was wrong, I fail to see the nature of the problems waiting to be encountered. I would estimate that we have already exercised about 99% of the code-exposure to such bugs without anything close to undue difficulties.

So what are we waiting for? My (unfounded, of course) suspicion is that your shouting reflects an unwillingness to accept reality, far more than it reflects any reality-based analysis. I'm open to any explanation you have for your position, but unless I can tie your position to anything I can see, I must regard it as arbitrary.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 09, 2000.


Flint,

I agree with you in that things certainly look pretty optimistic. However, given businesses' stockpiling of resources, coupled with supply chains sometimes spanning the globe, I don't see how one could reach a position that essentially concludes that, "for all practical purposes all is well", after only nine days, as you seem to imply.

In a couple of months or so, if there are no serious problems, I'll feel much better.

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 09, 2000.


eve:

I simply observe that these global supply chains are currently operating properly. They really are. Not enough stockpiling was done in any one sector to cause those chains to stop moving through lack of demand. They are operating normally.

By all accounts I've read, demand in some areas will fluctuate more than normal. Computer hardware upgrades were very common, boosting the pre-rollover sales of suppliers, and probably reducing those sales later somewhat. Conversely, many organizations "froze" new purchases and developments, leading to an unusual rise later. To what degree these will cancel out remains to be seen. I don't expect that much variation from normal patterns.

So I'm not persuaded that there are some kind of mini-Time Bombs lurking in dark corners waiting to spring, without ANY supporting observation or analysis beyond the arbitrary and unsupported declaration that problems WILL happen. Without such observations, I must regard that position as a matter of faith.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 09, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ