4 ms·

He seems to take the stance that it is safe to ignore problems until they are large problems and he references Y2K as an example. A large part of the reason Y2K

by tdb7893 10y ago

He seems to take the stance that it is safe to ignore problems until they are large problems and he references Y2K as an example. A large part of the reason Y2K wasn't a problem is that fixes went out for potential issues before they happened.

setr 10y ago
Actually, if you look at the link for "Adam's Law of Slow-Moving Disasters", it states: The idea is that society always avoids global disasters that are slow-moving because we rise to the challenge even when it seems impossible. In other words, he believes (w.r.t individuals not solving the large problem) its safe to ignore large problems because "we have an unbroken track record of avoiding doom".
- DannyB2 10y ago
  A problem with unbroken track records is that they can eventually be broken.
- tdb7893 10y ago
  I think it's kinda making the argument of "humanity always avoids large disasters" means that "humanity doesn't need to work to fix large disasters". I think this is wrong and we have avoided most large disasters by actually expending effort to fix them (e.g. Y2K). I think the thesis falls apart if you stop trying to actually attempt to make it better, which is what people are advocating for climate change.
mikestew 10y ago
I could easily demonstrate to you that Y2K would be a problem were you to ignore it. It also came with a hard deadline. You could dick around saying, "2% of computer scientists don't think Y2K is real", but come January 1, 2000, you could have been cleaning up a disaster while the rest of the world went on about their day. The disaster would be localized, so no one would care even if your business went under as a result. But you could still fix your code after reality set in, it would just cost you a lot both in expense to fix and lost business. In contrast to climate change, where we're still arguing about the details. We don't have a hard deadline, and even if we did, it would occur (most likely) after we're all dead. So we get to kick the can down the road a little longer. Should disaster actually strike, I don't think we get the opportunity to do the equivalent of putting four digit years after the fact. So not a direct comparison, IOW.

by tdb7893 10y ago

setr 10y ago

Actually, if you look at the link for "Adam's Law of Slow-Moving Disasters", it states: The idea is that society always avoids global disasters that are slow-moving because we rise to the challenge even when it seems impossible. In other words, he believes (w.r.t individuals not solving the large problem) its safe to ignore large problems because "we have an unbroken track record of avoiding doom".

DannyB2 10y ago
A problem with unbroken track records is that they can eventually be broken.
tdb7893 10y ago
I think it's kinda making the argument of "humanity always avoids large disasters" means that "humanity doesn't need to work to fix large disasters". I think this is wrong and we have avoided most large disasters by actually expending effort to fix them (e.g. Y2K). I think the thesis falls apart if you stop trying to actually attempt to make it better, which is what people are advocating for climate change.

mikestew 10y ago

I could easily demonstrate to you that Y2K would be a problem were you to ignore it. It also came with a hard deadline. You could dick around saying, "2% of computer scientists don't think Y2K is real", but come January 1, 2000, you could have been cleaning up a disaster while the rest of the world went on about their day. The disaster would be localized, so no one would care even if your business went under as a result. But you could still fix your code after reality set in, it would just cost you a lot both in expense to fix and lost business. In contrast to climate change, where we're still arguing about the details. We don't have a hard deadline, and even if we did, it would occur (most likely) after we're all dead. So we get to kick the can down the road a little longer. Should disaster actually strike, I don't think we get the opportunity to do the equivalent of putting four digit years after the fact. So not a direct comparison, IOW.