OT - TO THREAD: please give your votes on 'Edwards scale'
I am curious to know how serious people on SI take the impact on Y2k. On the newsgroup comp.software.year-2000; for quite some time now there are some well established scales used to determine where the participants stand regarding Y2k; and especially what trends can be observed. Below you see the 'Edwards' scale, going from :
1='no effect from Y2k'
up to :
10='Total economic breakdown'.
Please give your votes!!
When sufficient people give their votes; I would like to get votes again in 1 or 2 months; so we can see possible trends.
I am currently 'Edwards 6.5', tending to Edwards 7.
Thanks!
John
_________________
> 1) "Natural" state; no effect from Y2K (though other world events may affect
> things)
> 2) Slight negative effects, unemployment marginally higher (<1%), some overtime
> 3) Mild recession, small increase in unemployment (1-2%), lots of overtime
> 4) Moderate recession, unemployment increase 2-5%
> 5) Severe recession, unemployment increase 6-10%
> 6) Depression, unemployment increase 11-15%, occasional barter
> 7) Severe depression, unemployment increase 16-20%, some barter
> 8) Major economic upheavals, unemployment over 30%, barter common
> 9) Widespread economic breakdown, collapse of most currencies, unemployment over
> 50%, barter prevalent
> 10) Total economic breakdown, collapse of all fiat currencies, return to barter
______
From:
kiyoinc@ibm.XOUT.net (cory hamasaki)
13:56
Subject:
Re: A modest proposal - Edwards scale
On Wed, 30 Sep 1998 04:50:19, Stormhound <stormhnd@sound.net> wrote:
> An evening's thought on the matter has produced the following possible
> refinements to the Edwards scale. Have fun with it, guys...I'd love to see some
> serious suggestions. I'm not trying to start a poll with it just yet, just set
> the ideas out here to be tinkered with for a bit.
There are two problems that jump out at me.
Some history, we tried a more precise poll. The WDC Y2K poll which as
been presented to congress, is a 10 point poll. The problems are common
to both.
1. We're reading entrails, trying to see the future. Hari Sheldon was
a bunch of baloney. The original Edwards scale was as precise as the
future can be. You can't really predict the future.
2. Unless the definitions just happen to align with your prejudices,
halucinations, and fantasies, you end up twisted around the axle,
mulling over 4, no 8, no 5. And then the compulsively accurate (you
know who you are, get help.) among us will save our guesses and attempt
to read psycho-babble into the choices.
>
> Revised Edwards/Hallyx/Craft scale:
> There are 4 separate scales, to represent the various aspects of the problem
> and what you think might happen.
A specific problem, and this is one of the areas in which I respectfully
disagree with paul milne, is that there is more diversity in the U.S.
than we generally recognize. There are places in the U.S. that are at 7
now and 50 miles away, things are at 1.
If you were a big thinker, like the denizens of de Jager's listserv or
the contributors to Risks Journal, you might spend a few evenings
debating these scales. An even more interesting question to ponder
would be whether there is a natural resistance point, somewhere about 5
or so. ...and if passing through the resistance point would result
in a catastrophy-theoretic fall all the way to 10.
The Edwards and Eastabrook scales are not perfect but they work well
enough to serve their primary purposes. Assess the temperment of the
current newsgroup mix, give everyone a chance to express their feelings
using a common language, and learn who is up or down in concern.
Here's an example of "not perfect" on the interpretation side. mickey
and Infomagic voted Edwards 7.5 and 8.0. Those two, by themselves,
pulled the group average up. There was a suggestion to cap the vote at
5.0 ... that doesn't work. 7.5 and 8.0 were legitimate expressions of
their assessment.
There was also the suggestion that the zero baseline was just under
3.0... well, no, 3 is defined as 80 hour workweeks and I haven't seen
that in my consulting practice... I peaked at, maybe, 55 billable hours
with another 20-30 hours putzing around USENET and writing WRPs, but
that's not an Edwards 3 as I understand it.
Right now, I am experiencing an Edwards 1 as a lifestyle. I have some
Y2K work, but it's not pressing... it's actually fallen off a little. I
hear the pointy hairs muttering and cursing but they haven't funded the
remediation work. The stores are full of food, the power stays on, the
birdies are chirping, and all is well with the world.
If the denial-heads are right, I'll blow through Y2K living at an
Edwards 1-2. ...which is OK with me.
Will it stay at Edwards 1? I doubt it. Everyone I know with hair horns
is darting his eyes around and looking scared. The geeks are laughing
and shrugging their shoulders.
Another odd thing. I'm "partnered" with 4 groups who call me once a
week or so, "Reassure us again. If we have a crunch, you'll help us,
right? This is your rate to us, right? If we need 110 % of your
time in a couple weeks, can you unwind from your current obligations?"
To which I remind them, no; I'm obligated to one client for the next 30
months for 20 hours/week. I told you that last week. And by the way,
that client opened up another task just yesterday so now I have even
less time available.
It feels like pressure building up out there, like a couple thousand
horn-hairs are watching a clock count down, they're real jittery.
> Economic:
> 1) "Natural" state; no effect from Y2K (though other world events may affect
> things)
> 2) Slight negative effects, unemployment marginally higher (<1%), some overtime
> 3) Mild recession, small increase in unemployment (1-2%), lots of overtime
> 4) Moderate recession, unemployment increase 2-5%
> 5) Severe recession, unemployment increase 6-10%
> 6) Depression, unemployment increase 11-15%, occasional barter
> 7) Severe depression, unemployment increase 16-20%, some barter
> 8) Major economic upheavals, unemployment over 30%, barter common
> 9) Widespread economic breakdown, collapse of most currencies, unemployment over
> 50%, barter prevalent
> 10) Total economic breakdown, collapse of all fiat currencies, return to barter
There are small areas in the U.S. that are at 7 now, always will be.
cory hamasaki 457 days, 10,986 hours. |
