3 ms·

- Why did you catch that? + because it was going to fall. - Are you certain? + yes. - but it didn't fall. You caught it. The fact that you prevented it fro

- Why did you catch that? + because it was going to fall. - Are you certain? + yes. - but it didn't fall. You caught it. The fact that you prevented it from happening doesn't change the fact that it was going to happen. Minority Report , 2002 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVGQHw9jrsk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVGQHw9jrsk People worked for years in the late 1990s replacing systems that were not Y2K compliant with new ones that were. It is becoming ever more common to question the veracity of disaster averted through effort. And it is very dangerous.

dragonwriter 7y ago
> It is only in the last few years that it has become common to question the veracity of disaster averted through effort. No, it isn't. Questioning whether Y2K was overhyped started before Jan. 1, 2000 and accelerated on Jan 1, 2000 when there weren't major breakdowns. If you are too good at mitigating a problem before it manifests, there's a good chance lots of people will doubt there was a problem to mitigate. On the other hand, if it's a sui generis problem like Y2K, it's by definition too late for their doubts to impact mitigation efforts for the one potential occurrence, so it doesn't matter all that much. For a recurring problem, where those doubts can impact preparedness for the next potential occurrence, that's a bigger challenge.
- SideburnsOfDoom 7y ago
  My apologies. I have edited the comment after that, because I didn't feel that "It is only in the last few years" was entirely correct. However, I feel that this tendency is getting worse. A denial of the role of expertise. The question "was Y2K real?" is a political issue now, and it's not because of Y2K specifically, it's as a comparison to more recent events.
SantalBlush 7y ago
Some folks think they're clever by repeating "Economists have predicted nine out of the last five recessions," but they don't seem to understand the Fed's purpose.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> It is only in the last few years that it has become common to question the veracity of disaster averted through effort. No, it isn't. Questioning whether Y2K was overhyped started before Jan. 1, 2000 and accelerated on Jan 1, 2000 when there weren't major breakdowns. If you are too good at mitigating a problem before it manifests, there's a good chance lots of people will doubt there was a problem to mitigate. On the other hand, if it's a sui generis problem like Y2K, it's by definition too late for their doubts to impact mitigation efforts for the one potential occurrence, so it doesn't matter all that much. For a recurring problem, where those doubts can impact preparedness for the next potential occurrence, that's a bigger challenge.

SideburnsOfDoom 7y ago
My apologies. I have edited the comment after that, because I didn't feel that "It is only in the last few years" was entirely correct. However, I feel that this tendency is getting worse. A denial of the role of expertise. The question "was Y2K real?" is a political issue now, and it's not because of Y2K specifically, it's as a comparison to more recent events.

SantalBlush 7y ago

Some folks think they're clever by repeating "Economists have predicted nine out of the last five recessions," but they don't seem to understand the Fed's purpose.