Where are all the Pollys?--Part 2

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

With 105 answers posted to Cory Hamasaki's recent thread, I can't believe no one contradicted him on his observations about THIS one!


Let's see if they'll tear themselves away from each others' throats over at the other place and wang on Cory again for a while on this one. (Why do I feel like I'm chumming?) Seriously, I'd like to read what they have to say about it!

-- Gearhead (2plus2@motown2.com), April 09, 1999


I, for one, would like to hear more Y2K optimists. If only us gloom-n-doomers (myself included) frequent here, this becomes more of a "TEOTWAWKI support-group" than a meaningful forum.

Sadly, the optimistic arguments here tend to be emotional "WE CAN DO IT!" happy-happy-joy-joy views, rather than factual arguments.

-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@Anonymous99.xxx), April 09, 1999.

All "Polly's" have one trait in common... Intellectual dishonesty.

-- (id@who.ami), April 09, 1999.

Actually, quite a few of the optimists here claim to have finished their remediation and testing. This isn't mindless cheerleading, this sounds like the real McCoy.

Of course, as 'id' makes clear, if you reject them as dishonest, you can't find any good news.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 09, 1999.


"...quite a few of the optimists here claim to have finished their remediation and testing..."

Yes, and they may very well be giving us the story straight. But the trait that I see in most Pollys is that they equate their status with the status of Y2K as a whole. Basically: "I'm done, so everyone will get done."

That's the problem I see with the thinking of some Pollys. I believe many, many businesses will get done. But will it be enough to stave off economic collapse? I don't think so, therefore I'm a "doomer."

I'd like a Polly to explain to me how, even if 90% of the companies in this country make it (which I DON'T believe will happen), the current global supply lines can be kept intact enough to avoid severe economic dislocation. So far I haven't seen a convincing argument.

I continue to wait patiently...

-- Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com), April 09, 1999.


I'm not sure quite where I disagree with you here. I don't believe *any* organization will be completely finished. I believe *all* will suffer at least some y2k errors that they missed or mis-corrected.

I believed Yourdon when he said that Jan 1 99 and April 1 99 would be barometers of failure. I still believe this, because almost every IT person I've heard of talked of code that would be handling 00 dates for the first time for various reasons. I also believe those who contend (such as RD) that we're indeed experiencing an increased incidence of such errors. We've heard of various other problems associated with upgrades or switching to new systems, prompted by y2k issues. The fact that we've been able to deal with this so far with minimal public impact seems to indicate that we either underestimated our ability to deal with such errors, or overestimated the consequences of these errors. Or both. By how much, I don't know.

To me, this argues in favor of degradation of systems rather than crash-and-burn. I expect this degradation to lead to shortages and delays and screwups and maddening inconveniences. And to a business bankruptcy rate well above average. I expect all of this to lead to a reduction in economic efficiency, to what degree I can't say. I expect a less deep depression than Yourdon, for a shorter period of time, but I'm not an economist either.

And I'm certainly prepared to be wrong.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 09, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ