Mr. Clark,
I have never read a post on this thread that advocates "building a bunker in the hills"Most here are seeking the truth but won't accept
without proof the polly's arguments for bump in the road.Perhaps since
you have some software expertise you would comment on the following particularly #7.Try not to attack the messenger just explain why or why not you fit the profile for #7.
The first posted 09/03/98 by Blake Leverett
The thread was titled - "How to think about Y2K"
(begin post)
This is my attempt to explain Y2K. When I say Y2K, I'm not talking about
computers or bank runs, but the psychology of how people react to the idea that
a small but common computer error could stop civilization. It is
fascinating to me how almost every person reviews some very dire facts and
somehow produces the conclusion that we will be OK, that Y2K will be "a bump in
the road." I am not attempting here to convince anyone about the reality of
Y2K or propose any particular outcome. I just want to help people think more
clearly about what they read and hear.
Before I continue, let me give you my background. This may help you
understand me better, and help you to decide whether my ideas are worth
anything. I am an electrical engineer (MIT EE '87) and spend most of my
time designing analog and power circuits, mostly for embedded systems. I
have done lots of computer programming of various kinds from AppleSoft BASIC to
C++ for Windows, including embedded system code in assembly and C. I have
never seen a mainframe.
After countless hours of study on the internet (most of which consisted of
reading comp.software.year-2000) I conclude two things:
1. The computers will fail. Not all of them, but enough to cause a real
threat to civilization. What will happen after 1/1/00 is anybody's guess,
and you could spend until 2000 reading everybody's guesses.
2. Trying to get factual information from a newsgroup is like trying to
learn quantum physics by listening to CB radio. Don't believe everything
you read, and check out every interesting claim for yourself.
I have devised a set of principles about Y2K that a "Y2K newbie" should know
before spending lots of time on research. I hope these principles help some
people to realize and accept the nature of Y2K faster than they would have
otherwise, and prepare for what is coming.
Y2K Principle #1: *** Nobody believes in this stuff ***
The number of people who are now preparing for Y2K fallout is small - tiny
really. This is because virtually nobody believes Y2K can be that bad.
Don't believe me? Just try to convince one other person that Y2K *could*
shut off the lights for three months. Not *will*, but *could*. Most people
are close-minded to the idea that our civilization is actually quite
fragile. This principle is part of the proof of why the problem got so bad
in the first place. The PHM's (Pointy-Haired Managers) who should have been
pushing hard for fixing Y2K for the past decade are just people, so only 0.1%
of them really believe Y2K is deadly. If the people who are in charge of
fixing the problem don't think it's a problem, then how will it get
fixed? It won't, and it's already too late to start fixing.
Y2K Principle #2: *** The first hour of research is scary ***
Before you really make an effort to research Y2K, you have probably heard some
news stories about how you should save your checking account statement from
December '99 just in case the bank's computers lose your records, and how a few
computer errors will cause oddball and wacky incidents like the 104 year-old
lady who was told to register for kindergarten. But when you read about how
bad some people think it will be - TEOTWAWKI - you are scared.
Y2K Principle #3: *** Later research may put your mind at ease ***
You will read articles about how the problem is being solved, we will finish
on time, etc. Some companies claim to be done with Y2K fixing. And there
are lots of people who are fixing the actual code who claim their work will
be done, and that everyone they know will finish also.
Y2K Principle #4: *** The more you read the worse it gets ***
You begin to realize that it doesn't matter if a few people are done. The
evidence is that most computers won't be fixed. Also, you will find new
articles that show the optimists were wrong - some organizations that
claimed to be done were really just lying, especially government agencies.
You grow skeptical of unsubstantiated claims of Y2K compliance.
Y2K Principle #5: *** People who suggest Y2K disaster are crazy ***
Think about it - what is "crazy"? Is it a medical term? No, it's a social
term. A crazy person (nutcase, nutball, etc.) is somebody whose beliefs
deviate from those of the majority. So if you come to believe that Y2K
could kill lots of people, you are nuts. Face it. Welcome to the club.
But remember this principle when you talk to people. If you can't take
laughter and ridicule, keep your mouth shut. I think this is why you don't
hear much about Y2K. Most people who believe in a Y2K disaster don't go
around telling everyone about it. I don't. Why should I? Why ruin my
reputation and bring on loads of ridicule for no gain? Remember, nobody
believes this stuff. Does Gary North convince a lot of people? Probably.
But far more people think he's a nutball. And if he were a CEO of a major
company, he would face huge penalties for speaking out as he has.
Y2K Principle #6: *** Substantive articles forecast a bad outcome ***
After about a hundred or so articles read, you will notice a trend. The
ones that have lots of facts and figures ("X" percent of companies haven't
even started yet) predict a bad outcome. The articles that predict rosy
outcomes don't quote any statistics - they just push the idea that most
disaster predictions are wrong; besides, we're Americans and nothing can
stop us. Since you already feel a little crazy, you would like to believe
them a little bit.
Y2K Principle #7: *** The "from where I stand" phenomenon ***
The most convincing argument for "a bump in the road" outcome is from the
programmers themselves. They will say that they are heavily involved with Y2K
remediation in XYZ company, and that they are done. All of their
data-trading partners in business are done also. Everyone is done that they
know of. There seems to be a contradiction here - if this guy (who is close to
the action) says everyone is done, what about all those scary articles claiming
60% (or whatever) of companies won't be ready by 1/1/00? The answer is simple
- this hotshot is working for one of the few companies that *will* make it. He
sees only his immediate work environment, and is blind to the importance of the
larger outside network - such as utilities, telecoms, banks, governments, etc.
This type of person lacks a global view. A programmer seeing poor results -
"we're working on it but we won't make it" - will never post an article about
how crappy the effort is going. It could cost him his job. The most he will
post are general comments about poor management, etc.
Y2K Principle #8: *** Large organizations all say the same thing ***
Go to any large company's web page. Then look at government web sites.
They all say the same thing: "We know about the problem, we're working on it,
and we'll be done fixing code and ready to test our systems on Jan 1,
1999." Let me put it this way - Some organizations have a billion lines of
code to fix, some have a few hundred thousand; some started working on Y2K
in 1989, and some started in August 1998. Yet they *all* say they'll start
testing in January '99. Is this just a coincidence? Will they really all
be done by '99? Sure they will - and monkeys might fly out of my butt, too.
They quote Jan. 1, 1999 because that's the latest credible date they can
give and still claim compliance by 2000. The web site compliance statements
all come from lawyers (which explains why they all say the same thing), and
probably have no relation to the organizations' actual Y2K compliance
progress.
Y2K Principle #9: *** The truth is out there ***
Surprisingly, the most telling news about Y2K comes from Australia, Canada, New
Zealand, and England. Those countries don't have the lawyer infestation that
the US does, so they are more open with facts. In Australia, I have read that
the government is running advertisements on TV and radio warning people to
prepare for disaster. In Canada, the military is preparing for civil disaster
by planning to buy supplies and outfit buildings for housing Y2K victims. But
you won't hear any such preparations or warnings from US organizations. The
lawyers have kept quiet anyone who has vital information to share.
I hope the above can help people to come to grips with Y2K quicker than I
did. Time is running out, and 99% of the people out there haven't yet been
confronted with the reality of Y2K. They won't have two months to jump through
the mental hoops needed to reconcile Y2K facts (suggesting
TEOTWAWKI) with common sense (suggesting a bump in the road).
I welcome comments and additions to this document. If people like it I will
post it to my web site, and I have a follow up piece in mind that may also
be useful.
Blake Leverett |
