Link

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0015U1

I was cleaning up my files and bookmarks when I happened upon this. It is worth looking at, just to see how doomerish the old TB was, even at July 99.

(And, yes, I admit it, I gave a small chance -10%- to a Yourdon level event.)

Regards

JC

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), July 03, 2000

Answers

Oops.

Proper Link

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), July 03, 2000.

Great find!

-- Carlos (riffraff1@cybertime.net), July 04, 2000.

re: that thread: as usual: Carlos "no opinion".

     SCENARIO                           ADVOCATE
     --------                           --------
     Bump in the road                   Koskinen
     Recession (as bad as 70's)         Yardeni
     Depression (as bad as 30's)        Yourdon
     Collapse (fall of US government)   Milne
     Devolutionary spiral               Infomagic

give your one line distribution of probabilities of the scenarios 
from Bump to Devolution. They should sum to 100. If everyone puts a # 
as the first character, and uses commas as a seperator, I'll sort the 
results in a few days and post two averages; one comprised of 
only "regulars" and one of all posters. 
Here is my entry (winner gets to mudwrestle with King of Spain): 

# 1,28,50,20,1 

-- a (a@a.a), July 14, 1999 

Answers

"The first 90% of a software project takes the first 90% of the time. 
The last 10% of a software project takes the other 90% of the time."
# 0,2,25,48,25

www.y2ksafeminnesota.com (read paragraphs 1 & 3 of "An Introduction")

-- MinnesotaSmith (y2ksafeminnesota@hotmail.com), July 15, 1999.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

 

#100,0,0,0,0 If I had a choice of something less than a bump in the 
road, I would have picked it. I've worked for too long in Y2k and 
engineering to buy the exagerations and hype you guys expound. Most 
effects of y2k have happened THIS year....next year will be 
relatively uneventful. Facts work for me....and by the way, I will be 
around on January 1, 2000 to see you guys eat crow, or all those 
reserves you've put back, lol! Regards, 

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), July 16, 1999. 


----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
 
#0,0,10,80,10 

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), July 15, 1999. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), July 04, 2000.

What that poll does show is that most of TB2000 was not expecting Gary North's collapse of Western Civilization scenario nor Paul Milne's collapse of government/anarchy scenario.

-- (read@it.carefully), July 04, 2000.

#5, 60, 32, 3, 0

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), July 16, 1999.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

The 5% chance of Bump is a nod to the idea that all these Glowing Press Releases, and the uneventful start of FY2000 on July 1 mean what they seem to mean.

The 60% chance of recession is based on the idea that a recession is likely anyway, and that Y2K failures at rollover will be a powerful drag on the economy to help that recession happen.

The 32% chance of depression is based on the idea that the USA stock market bubble could easily burst, with Y2K problems as the trigger. That could start a wave of credit defaults and an abrupt economic slowdown of major proportions.

The 3% chance of USA government failure is a nod in the direction that any time economic catastrophe hits in a big way, even sturdy governments are liable to fall. In February 1932 a lot of folks wondered if the USA government would last much longer. Also, wars become more likely when the world is in economic chaos.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), July 16, 1999.

-- more (of@those.forecasts), July 04, 2000.

Yep, CPR, that was a little edited. Typical.

-- Hiway (Hiway441@aol.com), July 04, 2000.

PUHLEEESE.

The vast majority were centered about Yourdon's "depression" view.

Since anti-doomers would be 100 on the "bump" side or even less (see Fact Finder's statement), the *Non-Reality* of the doomzies and pessimists is **OBVIOUS**. Many are still not back in the real world and............never will be.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), July 04, 2000.

Yessiree, more_of_these_forecasts, that is exactly what I wrote. You will note, as will everyone else who reads it, that I was 95% wrong about Y2K.

Incidentally, I was 100% wrong about the timing of the next recession to hit the USA. And I was 100% wrong about the bursting of the USA stock market bubble happening early this year. The pullback we've seen in the NASDAQ is comparatively minor - not nearly enough to destroy investor confidence in stocks.

Y2K did not cause enough trouble to affect the economy in any noticable way. The Federal Reserve did pour massive liquidity into the system in September/October 1999 to forestall any Y2K liquidity crunch. Without any offsetting Y2K drag on the economy in early 2000, that liquidity caused the stock market to overheat in December/January. In the meantime, the Federal Reserve has not drained the liquidity, but instead has chosen to raise interest rates, instead.

So far, so good. No recession. No depression. I must admit, I was wrong! Wrong! Wrong! (But not especially unhappy about it.)

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), July 04, 2000.

cpr farted, "Since anti-doomers would be 100 on the "bump" side or even less (see Fact Finder's statement), the *Non-Reality* of the doomzies and pessimists is **OBVIOUS**. Many are still not back in the real world and............never will be.""

Whooeeee! Lookit the doomzies!!

------------------------------------------------------------
30,50,20,0,0

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 14, 1999.

------------------------------------------------------------
98,2,0,0,0

...I'm in a pessimistic mood...

-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), July 15, 1999.

------------------------------------------------------------
#34,65,1,0,0

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 15, 1999.

------------------------------------------------------------
# 90, 10, 0, 0, 0

Maybe the "pole" should be upside the y2kultists heads!

-- Guess who (Fu_Q_y2kfreaks@hotmail.com), July 15, 1999.

------------------------------------------------------------
90,10,0,0,0

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), July 15, 1999.

------------------------------------------------------------
60,35,5,0,0

-- Jimmy Bagga Doughnuts (jim1bets@worldnet.att.net), July 15, 1999. ------------------------------------------------------------

Two questions:
1. Have the above doomzies apologized to cpr yet?
2. Did FactFinder collect his prize?

-- (I'm a@little.teapot), July 04, 2000.

Teapot, time to turn over a new tea leaf and clean yourself out. Ex- Lax and similar products are known to permit the Out Flow of such shit.

FACT: a "recession" is orders of magnitude less than a "depression". So the "scaling" you are trying to use just doesn't fly. MOST of the DOOM ZOMBIES WERE in the range from Yardeni to YourToast-Ed and Milne. If one places YourToast-Ed at 9 and Idiot Savant Pig Farmer at 10, then Info and Gary occupy a space known as "off the charts".

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), July 04, 2000.

>> FACT: a "recession" is orders of magnitude less than a "depression". <<

Hmmmm, "orders of magnitude"? For the innumerate among us, a one order of magnitude difference would be a tenfold difference, while two orders of magnitude (the minimum cpr could be thinking of) would be a hundredfold difference.

Cpr, could you be a little more specific about what statistics for a depression are 100 times worse than a recession?

Come to think of it, can you name any stat for a depression that is 100 times worse than the similar stat for a recession?

To put it another way, can you give us any clue how what you said here is any different than pseudo-mathematical blathering?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), July 04, 2000.

If one places YourToast-Ed at 9 and Idiot Savant Pig Farmer at 10, then Info and Gary occupy a space known as "off the charts".

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), July 04, 2000.

Ed Yourdon's last ranking for Russ Kelly's site in December 1999 was a 5.0 to 9.0. Gary North was still at a 10 right up until the rollover.

http://www.russkelly.com/experts.html

-- (Statistics@r.us), July 04, 2000.

Typical. cpr regurgitated, "anti-doomers would be 100 on the "bump" side or even less"

The bump side or even less is represented by the first number on the scale.
Flint = 30
Y2K Pro = 98
Maria = 34
Guess who = 90
Deano = 90
JBD = 60

After declaring that anyone who didn't declare a bump in the road as a 100% probability is a doomzie, cpr attempts to argue with the validity of the scale. Not the point. cpr's statement was black and white, demonstrating again his remarkable inability to discern the variables required for complex thinking. Anyone not 100% in the bump in the road category was a doomzie, decrees cpr....followed by, "But but but the scale is invalid."

This is only one example of several from cpr's postings today where he attempts to change the focus of the argument in a childish effort to hide his mistakes. Rather like an unhousebroken puppy who poops on the floor and covers it with a rug, thinking no one will notice the stench.

-- (I'm a@little.teapot), July 04, 2000.

Teapot. Take the ExLax and get rid of all the shit you have stored up.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), July 05, 2000.

Brilliant answer, cpr! You may even succeed in redirecting someone's attention away from the fact that you were caught making childish mistakes.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), July 05, 2000.

One interesting stat I forgot to mention in my original post:

Of the people who repsonded to "a"'s poll, 82 (by my count) gave the "bump in the road" scenario 0% (zero) probability. And many of those were familiar handles.

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), July 05, 2000.

The 5% chance of Bump is a nod to the idea that all these Glowing Press Releases, and the uneventful start of FY2000 on July 1 mean what they seem to mean.

The 60% chance of recession is based on the idea that a recession is likely anyway, and that Y2K failures at rollover will be a powerful drag on the economy to help that recession happen. The 32% chance of depression is based on the idea that the USA stock market bubble could easily burst, with Y2K problems as the trigger. That could start a wave of credit defaults and an abrupt economic slowdown of major proportions. The 3% chance of USA government failure is a nod in the direction that any time economic catastrophe hits in a big way, even sturdy governments are liable to fall. In February 1932 a lot of folks wondered if the USA government would last much longer. Also, wars become more likely when the world is in economic chaos.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), July 16, 1999.

Brilliant answer, cpr! You may even succeed in redirecting someone's attention away from the fact that you were caught making childish mistakes.

Lian,

Looks like CPR isn't the only one making mistakes, or at least that you have precisely zero credibility when it comes to pointing them out regarding anything - let alone Y2k!

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 05, 2000.

Johnny, you beat me to it. The revisionists love to pull that "most people didn't expect the worst" BS. They convieniently ignore the posts that use language like "this debate is just like re-arranging deck chairs on the titanic". LOL, I guess they don't know just how bad the "titanic" was, and comparing y2k to that meant they thought it was "real bad". Personally, I think if anyone gave even a "1" to the last 2 catagories, they proved they didn't understand y2k AT ALL.

Oh well, the netghost/carlos', kevins, hellers and y2kdaves of the world will just never "GI". Too bad for them.

-- Ancient Lurker (since@19.98), July 05, 2000.

Good try Andy Ray.

You forgot to quote another reply I made in this thread, where I said: "[...]I was 95% wrong about Y2K. [...] I was 100% wrong about the timing of the next recession to hit the USA. And I was 100% wrong about the bursting of the USA stock market bubble happening early this year."

But then, if you had quoted me saying that, it would have been a harder sell to convince anyone that I was "redirecting attention" away from my mistakes, wouldn't it?

>> you have precisely zero credibility when it comes to pointing them out regarding anything <<

Ah, yes. We've seen this argument before. I was wrong about Y2K, therefore I cannot be trusted to be right about anything.

Does this argument generalize to other people making other mistakes, or does it only apply to people who were specifically wrong about Y2K?

Andy Ray, as a member of the Church of Perpetual Y2K Rightness you perhaps have a blind spot regarding this favorite argument of yours. It only convinces people who already believe as you do, therefore it is not necessary even to make the argument at all.

To everyone else, my state of Y2K grace is extraneous to whether cpr is right or wrong, mature or immature, handsome and accomplished, or clumsy and crass. He must stand on his own merits, don't you think?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), July 05, 2000.

Good try Andy Ray.

You forgot to quote another reply I made in this thread, where I said: "[...]I was 95% wrong about Y2K. [...] I was 100% wrong about the timing of the next recession to hit the USA. And I was 100% wrong about the bursting of the USA stock market bubble happening early this year."

But then, if you had quoted me saying that, it would have been a harder sell to convince anyone that I was "redirecting attention" away from my mistakes, wouldn't it?

>> you have precisely zero credibility when it comes to pointing them out regarding anything <<

Ah, yes. We've seen this argument before. I was wrong about Y2K, therefore I cannot be trusted to be right about anything.

Does this argument generalize to other people making other mistakes, or does it only apply to people who were specifically wrong about Y2K?

Andy Ray, as a member of the Church of Perpetual Y2K Rightness you perhaps have a blind spot regarding this favorite argument of yours. It only convinces people who already believe as you do, therefore it is not necessary even to make the argument at all.

To everyone else, my state of Y2K grace is extraneous to whether cpr is right or wrong, mature or immature, handsome and accomplished, or clumsy and crass. He must stand on his own merits, don't you think?

I will say one thing in cpr's favor. He was right about Y2K. Conversely, I was wrong about Y2K. I can't hide that fact.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), July 05, 2000.

Brian:

Any bit twiddler knows an order of magnitude is a factor of two. Ten is for those who count on their fingers. For byte twiddlers, it's a factor of 16 (in decimal, for finger counters).

Stay tuned for lesson 2 -- fractals.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 05, 2000.

Flint:

Only if your degree is in political science and redefining words is part of the program. Otherwise, for those of us in math, it is 10 fold. Of course you could align yourself with al-d on this one [which you seem to be doing] and define it as anything.

-- DB (Debunker@nomore.xxx), July 05, 2000.

Lian,

Here we go again...you stated in another quote that you were wrong - why is this always about you? You're not that important - especially to your former friends and embarrassed family members!

DB,

Glad to see you're not a debunker - hope the door did not strike you on the arse upon your exit.

Flint is absolutely correct. An "order of magnitude" is a base- specific exponential (or logarithmic - depending upon the formula) function.

Your defense of memetic doomers with a propensity for incorrectness, instability, and lying says more about you than your (new) alias. Keep hiding, doomer.

Perhaps you'll get the next ctatstrophic prediction correct - until then, it's best to continue to exhibit shame!

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 05, 2000.

Flint, DB is right. One order of magnitude is times 10.

-- www (xxx@yyy.zzz), July 05, 2000.

>> ... why is this always about you? <<

Let me hazard a guess, Andy Ray, my love. Could it be because you were talking about me?

Now, I do say that you have the right idea - that using humor is a great method for diverting attention away from what I said, without calling attention to that as your major intention.

Tip of the day: when using humor, use funny humor.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), July 06, 2000.

One interesting stat I forgot to mention in my original post: Of the people who repsonded to "a"'s poll, 82 (by my count) gave the "bump in the road" scenario 0% (zero) probability. And many of those were familiar handles.

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), July 05, 2000.

The news about y2k in July of last year did not necessarily point to a bump-in-the-road outcome. It didn't point to a Gary North scenario either, but what we're talking about right now is whether we should have known by July, 1999 that the only possible outcome for y2k was a bump in the road.

Consider the y2k news from that time period.

June

http://www.house.gov/reform/gmit/y2k/990615.htm

"The Office of Management and Budget has identified 43 federal programs it calls high impact  programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and the nation's Air Traffic Control system. Each day, these programs provide critical services to millions of Americans, but only two of them  Social Security and the National Weather Service  say they are ready for January 1, 2000.

"We will continue to monitor these programs in our quarterly report cards. Each one involves a host of public- and private-sector partners  from vendors and suppliers to state and local governments. Several of them are not scheduled to be ready until December.

July

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0017kE

In addition, nine states are ``behind'' in efforts to ensure their most critical systems do not fail when the year 2000 dawns, said the head of a Senate panel monitoring the issue.

The nine -- which reported having completed work on less than 70 percent of their most important systems -- are New Hampshire, Ohio, Alabama, Louisiana, Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, California and Hawaii.

SNIP

The Senate panel displayed a chart showing that only 43 percent of the 21 cities' key systems were said by the cities themselves to be ready as of July for the date change.

The GAO carried out the study by interviewing city officials by telephone from June 28 to July 9.

August

http://www.usa.capgemini.com/news/pr99.asp?id=104

Fewer Than Half of Major Firms Anticipate Full Year 2000 Compliance in Critical Systems by Year's End

Three-Quarters Have Experienced a Year 2000-Related Failure; Firming Their Grip on Year 2000 Problem Solving, More Top Managers Plan to Run Millennium Crisis Centers

Fewer than half of America's largest companies (48 percent) expect all of their critical systems to be prepared for the Year 2000, according to a new survey by Cap Gemini America, Inc., an information technology and management consulting leader.

One in five companies (18 percent) expect that 75 percent or less of their critical systems will be "completely tested and compliant" by December 31, 1999. Thirty-six percent expect between 76 and 99 percent of their applications to be ready for Year 2000, and two percent anticipate completing work on 50 percent or less of their systems.

A lot of y2k work had been done by last summer. A lot of it had not been done yet.

There were many optimistic press releases around that time concerning the progress of the banking and electric power industries. A collapse of society was obviously not the likely outcome for y2k at that point, but the August NERC report that claimed 99% readiness among its members had not been released yet at the time of "a"'s poll.

-- in the context (of@that.time), July 06, 2000.

www, flint was making a joke, get it bits and bytes? :)

Wow, I was a doomer! Yet they considered me a polly troll. I thought we'd possibly come to a recession, not any bigger than in the 70's. But that was in July. By the time Christmas came around I didn't think anything would happen.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 06, 2000.

"Consider the y2k news from that time period."

That is your problem Kev. "news" doesn't always inform you the best....it is usually best to talk to experts before drawing a conclusion. Perhaps you have learned that basing decisions on news "soundbytes" alone can foul up logical thinking.

Perhaps you have learned that?......

-- A L (since@19.98), July 06, 2000.

>> Any bit twiddler knows an order of magnitude is a factor of two. Ten is for those who count on their fingers. <<

Yeah. I thought of that before I posted, but I figured nobody else would.

>> For byte twiddlers, it's a factor of 16 (in decimal, for finger counters). <<

[He wonders, how often will I ever be able to say "gotcha" to flint? Not bloody often, he concludes.]

Bytes would be a factor of 8. Words would be a factor of 16. Base 16 would be hexadecimal.

[He beams like the bright boy he is, expecting praise from the teacher.]

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), July 06, 2000.

Brian:

Not even close, sorry. A byte can hold 256 (decimal) different values, so a byte-wide order of magnitude would be a factor of 256, while a 16-bit word would be a factor of 65,536. That's a somewhat larger order of magnitude. That's the technical answer.

In practice, though, programmers who work with whole byte (or word) quantities work in the hexadecimal number base for convenience, so when they say ten they mean 16 (decimal). Microcontroller programmers tend to work at the bit level (i.e. the voltage levels on pins, expressed digitally. To them, ten (binary) is two (decimal).

The decimal number base is a huge annoyance to "real" programmers. Translating a decimal number into the bit pattern of a bitstream of the necessary width is a tedious, unnecessary process. Ten (decimal) and its multiples aren't two to the *anything*. How irritating!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 06, 2000.

Teapot, No, I never did collect that prize. In fact, I forgot about the thread and my post until this thread. I never would have accepted the prize to "mudwrestle King of Spain" anyway, as a matter of fact in the original threat KOS offered me a "mudwrestling" opportunity by belittling my post declaring that y2k would be less than a bump in the road - and I ignored his reply.

This was a funny thread in retrospect. Never have I had as much confidence in the outcome of an event as Y2K. This was based on actual experience in y2k assessments and testing, not regurgitated garbage as was usually posted at TB2000. To see the doomsday predictions and claims while at the same time knowing these people didn't have a clue made it pretty funny.

As you can see by the originally thread, I was 100% correct in my predictions, the only other poster who came close was y2k Pro. Frankly, from a y2k knowledge perespective, I owned you guys at TB2000. Now paint my house.

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), July 06, 2000.

Factfinder,

"You couldn't have known."

"No one knew what was going to happen!"

"How can you be so arrogant as to claim you knew?"

Just more drivel from pathetic memtic doomers - thought you might get a laugh out of it!

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 06, 2000.

Just curious, Andy Ray, but who are you quoting? The voices in your head, or somebody real?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), July 07, 2000.