My guess is that it represents sloppy work. While, as a software developer if given the choice, I would probably argue that such cosmetics should be classified as non-critical (assuming a much longer list of critical issues) & dealt with later.
Speaking as a former software developer, I agree with your perspective. That's why I find these little problems amusing rather than threatening. Uncle Sam, OTOH, defines "critical" as something that would be noticed by the public. I guess that's why they're politicians and I am not. Every human is capable of seeing 1900 on a notice for jury duty and immediately recognizing what happened and what the message was intended to convey. No harm, no foul, IMHO. I would define "critical" as those systems with the potential to do real damage to life or property. (This difference in definition is part of the reason that I don't find the reports of incomplete critical systems very meaningful.)
I think your concern about how the public reacts to such news is valid. So far, reports that I've seen of these little glitches have been light hearted and matter-of-fact, or so they've seemed to me. If one were predisposed to worry about Y2K, though, one could find in them evidence of impending system failure, especially if there were a lot of them. I'd bet that there haven't been a lot. These little incidents make such good human interest stories that I would expect most of them to be picked up by the national media and we would know of them.
Karen |
