[londons_explore]

This is the difference between "Bob the engineer says the bridge will fall down if you cut this cable", Vs "Bob the engineer cuts cable to demonstrate how easy it is to knock bridge down".

We should trust our engineers, and not require them to demonstrate something at great cost to get the attention of people who make decisions...

[harry8]

Which engineers to trust? The ones saying Y2K needed billions of investment or cars all crash with planes falling from the sky as we usher in the post-technology age Jan 1, 2000. Remember that? Some people still believe them that we headed it off successfully, everywhere on earth in every industry, regardless of how little was spent, including nothing at all...

You can't trust engineers anymore than you can trust lawyers (which lawyers?) or Doctors (Second opinions ever much?) Or indeed scientists, managers and politicians. The question to ask is "Do you have good reason to find this convincing."

When what is at stake has sufficient value proving the obvious is indeed, also correct, beyond doubt has very real benefits.

[hinkley]

This is the same kind of thinking that has people questioning quarantine protocols (in general, not just this one). A precautionary measure that prevents a worst case scenario doesn't suddenly become stupid because the scenario it was designed to prevent does not happen. We hedge our bets all the time, and strategy people who don't hedge will end up driving busloads of people off a cliff sooner or later. Reckless gambling has no place in policy decisions.

We also had some pretty fair warning from industries that use long-term thinking. Banking software was already breaking in 1969 (30 year mortgage logic). For many industries this was a long emergency.

Even by a cynical view that these were pork projects that didn't 'need to get done', so what? We do these all the time. The cash infusions prop up industries or divisions, and often serve as cover for attacking deferred maintenance. Over beers you can complain about how stupid it is to have to get things done this way, but at work you take the money and run as far as you possibly can.

What bothers me most, I think, is that if you've worked in software for very long at all, you should know all of this. Politics and proxies come up if you work at a mature company, or one that matures while you're there.

(On December 31st 1999, I watched the New Year's celebrations for Tokyo and Australia. When they didn't blow up, I agreed to make plans involving alcohol for the evening. By the time Europe didn't blow up, I figured we were gonna be okay, so Happy New Year to me.)

[harry8]

>This is the same kind of thinking that has people questioning quarantine protocols (in general, not just this one).

There are competing protocols from different expert sources. Which to trust?

The ones that make a convincing case. See how that works?

Who to believe about Y2K? The engineers who make a convincing case.

(Y2K wasn't nothing, but a huge part of the investment in mitigation was a con. Cables certified where I worked. Every windows95 desktop. Do you believe those engineers who said that was necessary? What about the ones who said, "Yeah probably should check your billing system and interest rate calculations. Airplanes, not so much..." But they usually weren't selling using the fear-frenzy for leverage. Do you remember all that?

[chiph]

As someone who worked through Y2K, I guarantee you that the code needed fixing, otherwise societal-level bad things really would have happened.

[harry8]

As someone who worked through Y2K, over 90% of the money spent accross society was straight-up con. It wasn't nothing, but what a massive sales beat-up it became.

Disagree, go nuts. Who do you trust? The engineer making the convincing case. "Trust engineers" not so much.